[Consent to smoking in public places and at home the opinions of smokers and nonsmokers girls].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was researching of dependence between current status of smoking and opinions about smoking tobacco in public places and at home of girls at the age 18. We examined 2246 girls who graduated junior high schools and were continuing their education in four types of schools: high schools, profiled high schools, technical secondary schools and vocational schools. Two-stage sampling method was used, with the team stratification by type of school. The study was conducted in November and December 2008, the auditorium method. The results show that although more than half of the girls, do not agree with smoking in various public places and by parents at home, about one quarter of them accept smoking in cafes, restaurants, pubs and bus stops, and less than 1/5 have no opinion on the subject. Applied analysis using logistic regression analysis indicate a close relationship between smoking trials undertaken by the girls examined, and their opinion about the approval for smoking by students at the school. The model attempts to smoking was a significant predictor of acceptance of smoking in cafes and pubs, and the model of the current consensus on tobacco smoking at bus stops. The presented results indicate the need for prevention activities among children and adolescents, which will contribute to the education of attitudes and skills necessary to take measures aimed at creating environments free from tobacco smoke.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.120 | 0.033 |
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".