Religion and Perceptions of the Regulation of Controversial Advertising
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study are (a) to examine the impact of religion on consumers' perceptions of controversial advertising, on their perceptions of the protective and restrictive social effects of controversial advertising regulations, and on their perceptions of the restrictiveness of the regulations; and (b) to determine the moderating effect of religion on the influence of independent variables (consumers' perceptions of controversial advertising, and of the protective and restrictive social effects of regulations on controversial advertising) on a dependent variable (consumers' perceptions of regulations governing controversial advertising). According to cross-sectional survey data collected from 1,402 university students in 11 countries throughout North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia, Islamic followers were most easily offended by controversial advertising and generally found the current regulations not strict enough to address their sensitivities; Christians' and Hindus' found the regulations to fit with their more liberal attitudes toward controversial advertising, while Buddhists/Taoists and nonbelievers perceived the current regulations to be overly strict. These findings suggest that regulatory bodies should institute regulations consistent with the sensibilities of the religious profile of the population in the locale in which they operate.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 it