Attitudes to water fluoridation in South Africa 1998. Part II. Influence of educational and occupational levels.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to investigate the influence of education, income and occupation on public perceptions of water fluoridation (WF). A questionnaire on current knowledge, sources of information, the purpose of WF and its desirability was administered to a representative sample of 2,220 individuals over the age of 18 years. Knowledge of WF increased with educational level (range from 13.5% in the grade 0-5 group to 59% in the grade 12 plus group). Lack of knowledge decreased from 76% to 37% in these groups respectively. Knowledge levels varied from 19% to 68% across the occupational spectrum and from 13% to 88% across the income spectrum. In educational levels up to grade 12, electronic media were most frequently cited as dominant sources of information among 40-50% of respondents, whereas in the grade 12 plus group print media (37%) dominated. Sources of knowledge on fluoridation were largely obtained from print and electronic media for both categories. Only 28% in the educational level up to grade 5 thought the purpose of WF was to protect teeth against decay. This gradually increased to 55% in the grade 12 plus category. More than a quarter of the population in both the occupational and income categories indicated that the purpose of WF was to purify water and protect teeth from decay. The number of respondents who thought that water should be fluoridated increased with level of education from 58% to 70%, while those who disagreed decreased as qualifications increased. The lower- and middle-income groups were more supportive of WF than the very-high-income groups. Persons in high administrative professional and executive positions were more opposed (27%) to WF than semi-skilled and unskilled workers (5%).
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".