MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151411148 · doi:10.1177/109019810002700307

Toward Totally Smokefree Schools and Beyond: The Crown Public Health Smokefree Schools Grant Program

2000· article· en· W2151411148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen A. Heckert, K.M. Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Education & Behavior · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Public healthCharterInterimEnvironmental healthMedicineStakeholderPolitical scienceHealth promotionPublic relationsNursingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A three-year small grants scheme in Canterbury and the West Coast, New Zealand aims to influence the health promoting climate of schools by adopting totally smokefree policies. The Smokefree Environments Act of 1990 established the legal imperative for school policies. The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the strategies of the Ottawa Charter provide the programmatic and evaluation framework. Evaluation indicators include the organizational and policy context, status of school smoking policies, reasons for participation, stakeholder involvement, the value of additional funding, and the extent of media coverage. Partnerships among local smokefree partners, schools and whanau/communities, and between the health and education sectors are a priority. Interim findings indicate the Crown Public Health Smokefree Schools Grant program has positively influenced policy development toward totally smokefree schools. Based on these results and the changing environment, the smokefree efforts are being integrated into the broader context of health promoting schools.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.318 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Education & BehaviorSame topicSchool Health and Nursing EducationFrench-language works237,207