MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022839172 · doi:10.20473/jpk.v8.i1.2020.66-78

Health Promotion in Public Places of Sakinah Supermarket Surabaya

2020· article· en· W3022839172 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zulfia Husnia, Hario Megatsari

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal PROMKES · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPublic Health and Nutrition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionPublic healthPromotion (chess)CharterBusinessEnvironmental healthDescriptive researchPublic relationsAdvertisingMarketingMedicinePolitical scienceNursingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Humans daily activities are inseparable from public places. Public places are facilities used for communal public activities, such as buying and selling in supermarket. The management of supermarkets have to ensure clean, healthy, safe, and comfortable facilities which do not give disadvantages for health. In responding this issue, health promotion is required in public places to get rid of environmental pollution and disease transmission. Objective: This study described health promotion in public places as found in Sakinah Supermarket. Method: This study was descriptive research with a quantitative approach. Data were categorized into primary data through observation and in-depth interview, as well as secondary data through Sakinah Supermarket’s document. The analysis was explored by using Ottawa Charter's 5 means of action as basic health promotion tool. Results: Health promotion in Sakinah Supermarket was still lacking. Health promotion efforts that have been done well are the concept of a No-Smoking Area, where Sakinah Supermarket did not sell cigarettes and did not provide smoking area. Conclusion: Sakinah Supermarket has not supported healthy public places since it does not give adequate information to improve individual’s awareness of health.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal PROMKESSame topicPublic Health and NutritionFrench-language works237,207