Pricing of alcohol in<scp>C</scp>anada: A comparison of provincial policies and harm‐reduction opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Alcohol pricing is an effective prevention policy. This paper compares the 10 Canadian provinces on three research-based alcohol pricing policies-minimum pricing, pricing by alcohol content and maintaining prices relative to inflation. DESIGN AND METHODS: The selection of these three policies was based on systematic reviews and seminal research papers. Provincial data for 2012 were obtained from Statistics Canada and relevant provincial ministries, subsequently sent to provincial authorities for verification, and then scored by team members. RESULTS: All provinces, except for Alberta, have minimum prices for at least one beverage type sold in off-premise outlets. All provinces, except for British Columbia and Quebec, have separate (and higher) minimum pricing for on-premise establishments. Regarding pricing on alcohol content, western and central provinces typically scored higher than provinces in Eastern Canada. Generally, minimum prices were lower than the recommended $1.50 per standard drink for off-premise outlets and $3.00 per standard drink in on-premise venues. Seven of 10 provinces scored 60% or higher compared to the ideal on indexing prices to inflation. Prices for a representative basket of alcohol products in Ontario and Quebec have lagged significantly behind inflation since 2006. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: While examples of evidence-based alcohol pricing policies can be found in every jurisdiction in Canada, significant inter-provincial variation leaves substantial unrealised potential for further reducing alcohol-related harm and costs. This comparative assessment of alcohol price policies provides clear indications of how individual provinces could adjust their pricing policies and practices to improve public health and safety. [Giesbrecht N, Wettlaufer A, Thomas G, Stockwell T, Thompson K, April N, Asbridge M, Cukier S, Mann R, McAllister J, Murie A, Pauley C, Plamondon L, Vallance K. Pricing of alcohol in Canada: A comparison of provincial policies and harm-reduction opportunities. Drug Alcohol Rev 2016;35:289-297].
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".