MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907155026 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v11n1p172

The Readiness of Smokers to Quit Smoking

2018· article· en· W2907155026 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Septian Emma Dwi Jatmika, Muchsin Maulana, Kuntoro Kuntoro, Santi Martini, Beni Setya Anjani

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Security and Socioeconomic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster samplingSmoking cessationCluster (spacecraft)Quit smokingPsychological interventionTest (biology)MedicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthNursingPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study is to find out the archives of smokers' readiness to quit smoking after the application of the Smoke-free House (RBAR) program. MATERIAL & METHODS: This type of research is a descriptive analytic study by using cross sectional approach. The research was conducted in a hamlet neighborhood (RW) that had been implementing RBAR program, and were selected randomly. They are RW 8 Tegal Panggung, RW 5 Tegal Panggung, RW 11 Ngupasan, RW 12 Bumijeo, RW 11 Gowongan. The samples were taken by cluster random sampling technique and obtained 70 heads of families with criteria of willing to be respondents, family heads (male), active smokers and permanent residents who lives in the study site since the RBAR program was first set in 2010. Data analysis was done by chi-square test. RESULTS: The result shows that attitudes has significant relation to the readiness of smokers to quit smoking after the application of the RBAR program (p value = 0.030). DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS: The carried out interventions can be adjusted to the stages of the smokers’ behavior change process.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicFood Security and Socioeconomic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207