MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2498699644 · doi:10.26719/2016.22.4.237

The operation, products and promotion of waterpipe businesses in New York City, Abu Dhabi an Dubai

2016· article· en· W2498699644 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Paul J. Joudrey, Karen Jasie, Lyubomyr Pykalo, Susan Singer, Mary Beth Woodin, Scott E. Sherman

Bibliographic record

VenueEastern Mediterranean Health Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsAbu dhabiPromotion (chess)BusinessAdvertisingSocial mediaMarketingGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated the customers, operations, products and advertising of these businesses to explore the unique policy challenges created by the suppliers of waterpipes. We completed a cross-sectional survey consisting of structured site observations and in-person interviews of businesses in New York City, Abu Dhabi and Dubai identified using Google, Yelp, Timeout Dubai and Timeout Abu Dhabi and neighbourhood visits in 2014. Regular customers made up 59% of customers. Franchises or chains were 28% of businesses. Waterpipes made up 39% of sales with 87% of businesses offering food within their menu. Flavoured tobacco made up 94% of sales. Discounts were offered by 47% of businesses and 94% of businesses used advertising, often through social media. The market consists of largely independent businesses, with a large regular customer base, frequently offering diversified services beyond waterpipes. These businesses advertise using both traditional and social media. The economics of waterpipe businesses is very different from the economics of cigarettes, and unique regulatory strategies are needed to control this epidemic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEastern Mediterranean Health JournalSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207