Bibliographic record
Abstract
That the Community Services Committee recommend Council implement a policy to prohibit tobacco advertising as well as tobacco sponsorship advertising by tobacco companies and/or their “shell ” companies on Regional property. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to outline the relationship between tobacco advertising, as well as tobacco sponsorship advertising and youth smoking. Solutions proposed will decrease the amount of tobacco and sponsorship advertising youth are exposed to in Ottawa-Carleton. Results of public consultation, as well as implications of this policy that prohibits tobacco and sponsorship advertising are presented. BACKGROUND Under the federal Tobacco Act, direct advertising is permitted to continue in a number of “adult” venues, and tobacco sponsorship advertising remains legal until 2003. The relationship between tobacco product and sponsorship promotions and both smoking initiation and continuing smoking has been well-documented. History has demonstrated the tobacco industry’s ability to circumvent attempts by the federal government to restrict their marketing practices. The importance of controls on tobacco advertising and promotion to a comprehensive tobacco reduction program argues for concerted action
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.533 | 0.415 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".