Medios de comunicación y consumo de alcohol en adolescentes: ¿qué dicen los expertos?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El objetivo del presente estudio es conocer la opinión de profesionales expertos en adolescencia, familia, escuela, medios de comunicación y políticas locales, respecto al rol que desempeñan los medios de comunicación en el consumo de alcohol en los adolescentes. Se ha realizado una investigación cualitativa siguiendo el esquema propuesto por la Teoría Fundamentada (Grounded Theory) (Glaser y Strauss, 1967). La información se ha obtenido a partir de Grupos de Discusión guiados por entrevistas semiestructuradas. Participaron en el estudio 32 expertos nacionales. La conclusión principal es que los expertos entrevistados perciben que los medios de comunicación desempeñan un importante rol educativo en el consumo de alcohol e identifican siete aspectos clave (subcategorías) en el comportamiento de los medios que suponen factores de riesgo para el consumo en los adolescentes, los cuales se agrupan en tres categorías (modelado en hábitos no saludables, imagen sesgada del adolescente y falta de rigor en la información).
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".