Self-Regulation of Beer Advertising: A Comparative Analysis of Perceived Violations by Adolescents and Experts: Table 1.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We assessed the impact of the 2010 revisions to Brazil's self-regulatory alcohol marketing code using expert and adolescent raters. METHODS: Five popular TV beer ads were selected. Ads were rated based on the 2010 Brazilian self-regulatory marketing code. The expert group (N = 31) represented health-related professions; the adolescent group (N = 110) were public high school students. RESULTS: At least 1 ad violated 11 of 17 guidelines included in the study. Ratings by experts and adolescents were similar. Both found violations in all sections of the self-regulatory code, but significant group differences were seen in applying the section that prohibits the promotion of excessive alcohol consumption, with experts identifying more violations than adolescents. CONCLUSION: Beer ads in the sample systematically violated the self-regulatory standards for alcohol advertising in Brazil according to both experts and youth. Public policies for more effective restrictions and prohibitions in alcohol ads should be considered.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it