MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W897260802 · doi:10.1007/bf03391651

Avoidable Deaths from Smoking: A Global Perspective

2011· article· en· W897260802 on OpenAlexaff
Prabhat Jha

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic health reviews · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Global Health ResearchSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersFogarty International CenterBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsExciseMedicineEnvironmental healthSmoking cessationConsumption (sociology)Quit smokingDemographyTobacco usePublic healthDeveloped countryLow and middle income countriesIntervention (counseling)Developing countryPopulationEconomic growthEconomicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On current consumption patterns, about 400 million adults worldwide will be killed by smoking between 2010 and 2050. Most of these deaths will occur among smokers currently alive. At least half will die at ages 30–69 years, losing decades of productive life. Smoking-attributable mortality has fallen sharply in high-income countries but will rise globally unless today’s smokers, most of whom live in low- and middle-income countries, quit smoking before or during middle age. The single most important intervention to raise cessation rates is a large increase in taxes. Tripling excise taxes on tobacco would raise cessation rates and deter smoking initiation. Higher taxes, regulations on smoking and information for consumers could avoid at least 115 million smoking deaths in the next few decades, including at least 25 million cancer deaths and 50 million vascular deaths.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.298
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.116 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic health reviewsSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207