The Development of Children Forum Capacity for Advocacy of Smoke-Free Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A healthy environment free from pollution is one of the rights of children whose fulfillment is difficult to realize when relying on the capacity of children themselves.Collaborating with the non-governmental organization Kakak Foundation, the Surakarta Children's Forum as a medium for children's participation in development has fought for the ratification of the smoke-free area policy.This research aims to examine the forms, mechanisms and outcomes of the capacity building process of the Surakarta Children's Forum for advocacy of the Surakarta City local regulation on smoke-free areas.This type of research is descriptive with qualitative methods and a case study approach.Data collection was conducted through observation, in-depth interview, focus group discussion, and documentation study, while data analysis through an interactive model of analysis encompassing data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing.Using the theory of capacity development from Eade (1997) and Kenny (2006), this research found a form of capacity development in the form of human capital and social capital capacity development and the mechanism is done with awareness raising and problem mapping training.This capacity building strategy resulted in a synergy of the strengths of the Surakarta Children's Forum and the Kakak Foundation for advocating local regulation on smoke-free areas in Surakarta City and monitoring its implementation.However, the synergy of capacity building for policy advocacy has not been able to result in the development of smoke-free public spaces.It is proven that smoking behavior and cigarette waste are still found in public parks where children do activities in Surakarta City.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".