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 opinions of government, health activists, and sport organizers toward tobacco sponsorship of sporting events have been widely discussed and debated. This paper contributes a new perspective to the debate by providing input from spectators at a major sporting event. Four hundred spectators responded to a paper-and-pencil survey at a Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) event that has a tobacco company as its title sponsor. Questions elicited demographic information in addition to spectator smoking habits, awareness of title sponsor, awareness of current tobacco legislation, opinion concerning tobacco sponsorship, and suggestions for alternative sponsorship. Results indicated that 73% supported tobacco sponsorship; 11% opposed it; and the remaining 16% had no opinion. Those opposed to tobacco sponsorship cited health implications of tobacco use, negative influence on young people, and negative aspects of tobacco promotion in general. Some spectators provided specific examples of alternative sponsors while others indicated that the willingness and financial interest of a potential sponsor were key elements of the sponsorship arrangement.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.004 |
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