MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292316450 · doi:10.5539/ach.v8n1p140

What should the Government do to Stop Epidemic of Smoking among Teenagers in Indonesia?

2016· article· en· W2292316450 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Harsman Tandilittin

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Culture and History · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirektorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)IndonesianContext (archaeology)Indonesian governmentDilemmaObligationTobacco controlMoral obligationPsychologyEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceMedicineLawPublic healthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="1Body">Smoking epidemic has occurred among the Indonesian adolescents, as the nearly six out of ten the youth of ages 13 to 15 years smoke daily. In fact, Indonesia has also been known as "the country of smoking baby", as some family smokers have deliberately introduced the way of smoking to their toddlers. In Indonesia, the most new smokers has been ensnared by the tobacco industry, as they started to smoke when they were minors, which are in incapable condition to make rational decisions. In this context, moral question emerge: Is the government obligated to prevent teenagers from taking-up cigarettes, and what should the government do to stop the smoking epidemic among the adolescents in Indonesia? To answer these questions, this paper contain two main study: First, the author has conduct a survey to present an overview about the ensnarement of new smokers and the dilemma of the tobacco retailers in selling cigarettes to minors in Indonesia. Second, the author presents an overview of the negative impacts of tobacco on children and an obligation analysis of the government to prevent adolescents from taking-up cigarettes. It will then propose some approach to stop smoking epidemic among the adolescents in Indonesia.</p>

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Culture and HistorySame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207