Public space and alcohol advertising: Exploratory study of the role of local government
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Swensen, G. (2016). Public space and alcohol advertising: Exploratory study of the role of local government. The International Journal Of Alcohol And Drug Research, 5(3), 117-123. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v5i3.224The paper argues that local government bodies in Western Australia, which have a long-standing key role in overseeing public health standards and regulating business activities, potentially have a major, but under-recognized, capability to regulate the promotion and advertising of alcohol in public places overseen by them. It is contended that because local government bodies already possess extensive statutory powers to undertake this function, there is a compelling case for them to actively regulate alcohol advertising as they “own” most of the public space in Australian cities and towns.As the proposition would involve the prohibition of alcohol advertising, this could mean that local authorities may balk at assuming this responsibility due to a possible loss of revenue if they have already issued licenses to companies to construct and maintain key parts of the public infrastructure, like bus shelters, seating, and other street furniture, in return for being able to charge fees for advertising on these facilities.It is contended that local government authorities would ably perform a front-line role in regulating alcohol advertising in public places because of their reliance on community-based processes of consultation and decision-making for planning, in addition to understanding this role as an extension of a long standing role concerned with the advancement of public health and traffic safety.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".