Sharing the Air, the Legal and Ethical Considerations of Extending Tobacco Legislation to Include Multiunit Dwellings in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the legal and ethical considerations of extending tobacco legislation to include multiunit dwellings (MUDs) in Alberta and the implications for public health nursing practice. The tobacco legislation in Canada currently protects individuals in public places and not private dwellings. In Alberta, there are over 1 million individuals living in MUDs who are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. Children are particularly vulnerable to the negative health effects. As well, many apartment fires in Alberta are related to smoking which makes expanding tobacco legislation to include MUDs an important public health issue. There are many potential barriers to the adoption of this tobacco legislation including legal, ethical, and civil rights concerns, and the bureaucracy of the political process. This study articulates the position that it is both legal and ethical to expand provincial tobacco legislation to include MUDs after the consideration of individual civil rights and using the Canadian Nurses Association Code of Ethics for Registered Nurses (2008) as a guide for practice. Public health nurses must advocate for a change in the current legislation by becoming politically active and building community capacity to demonstrate accountability and promote social justice.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".