The impact of advertisement and promotion of alternative tobacco and nicotine products on tobacco users: online survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the last few years, a large number of nicotine products have appeared on the Czech market, which are intended, among other things, to serve as alternatives to conventional cigarettes. These alternatives are often visually very distinctive and attractive. They are often perceived by users as less harmful and suitable for substitution for conventional cigarettes. At the same time, these products are not subject to legislation as strict as conventional cigarettes or packaged tobacco. Currently, approximately one quarter of the Czech population are at least occasional smokers, and a significant proportion are either currently using alternative nicotine products or are considering changing their use. Aims: The main objective of this work was to determine how active tobacco users perceive new alternatives on the market, specifically in terms of health harms, marketing presentation and appearance. In particular, another objective is to map preferences in the choice of use form and to compare the above mentioned alternatives with conventional cigarettes. Methods: The data was obtained through quantitative research. It was carried out using an online questionnaire survey in the Survio platform interface and distributed in the social networking environment. Respondents were collected through...
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".