Actions reducing tobacco smoking at the workplace--do larger and richer companies solve the problem better?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Workplaces are an important subject of state policy regarding smoking. They are obliged to comply with the prohibition of smoking in public places, except special smoking-rooms--if the employer decides to create such. This paper discusses the Polish enterprises activity in relation to smoking, according to new legal obligations and principles of health promotion programs. Furthermore, the article raises the question whether companies' size and economic situation differentiate their attitude to smoking. MATERIAL: 1002 interviews (computer-assisted telephone interview - CATI) conducted in November/December 2010 (date of entry into force of the new law regarding smoking at the workplace) in a representative sample workplace employing above 50 employees. RESULTS: A total smoking prohibition applies in 23% of companies, smoking is allowed only in special smoking-rooms and outside the building in 54% of enterprises, in 23% of companies regulations are inconsistent with the state policy (for example smoking allowed in the corridors). Apart from smoking bans, companies introduce disciplinary punishments for breaking them and health education (in the absence of other activities promoting non-smoking). In one in three companies' the management does not enforce the compliance with the introduced regulations. Generally, the management does not see a connection between employees smoking and the functioning of the company. In every second company, employees to a greater or lesser extent break the smoking ban. Companies' economic situation does not differentiate their attitude to the problem, the size of employment only slightly. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained can be used for future evaluation of the effectiveness of the state tobacco control policy and proper direction of the programs aimed at releasing companies from smoke as well as campaigns prepared for employers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".