CIGARETTE IGNITION PROPENSITY TESTING – Second Series By
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ignition strength for a total of 54 brands of cigarettes was determined in accordance with the ASTM E2187-02b standard test method. Fifty-two (52) brands of cigarettes sold in Canada and 2 brands of Philip Morris's Merit cigarettes sold in the U.S. were tested. On the 15-layer filter paper assembly, 51 brands of the cigarettes sold in Canada produced 90 to 100% full-length burning. These cigarettes plus those 10 brands of the cigarettes tested previously (which produced 95 to 100% full-length burning) have a relatively high propensity to ignite upholstered furniture if lit and dropped on soft furnishings. These high percentages of full-length burns demonstrate the need to make cigarettes less prone to cause fires. Only 3 brands of the cigarettes tested were found to have a low ignition propensity. The More Menthol cigarettes produced 15% full-length burns on the 15-layer filter paper assembly and 27.5% full-length burns on the 3-layer filter paper assembly. The Merit Ultra Light cigarettes produced 15% full-length burns on the 15-layer filter paper assembly and 45% full-length burns on the 3-layer filter paper assembly. The Merit Ultima cigarettes produced only 5% full-length burns on the 15-layer filter paper assembly. i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".