Evidence from regression‐discontinuity analyses for beneficial effects of a criterion‐based increase in alcohol treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brief interventions effectively reduce alcohol problems; however, it is controversial whether longer interventions result in greater improvement. This study aims to determine whether an increase in treatment for people with more severe problems resulted in better outcome. We employed regression-discontinuity analyses to determine if drinking driver clients (n = 22,277) in Ontario benefited when they were assigned to a longer treatment program (8-hour versus 16-hour) based on assessed addiction severity criteria. Assignment to the longer16-hour program was based on two addiction severity measures derived from the Research Institute on Addictions Self-inventory (RIASI) (meeting criteria for assignment based on either the total RIASI score or the score on the recidivism subscale). The main outcome measure was self-reported number of days of alcohol use during the 90 days preceding the six month follow-up interview. We found significant reductions of one or two self-reported drinking days at the point of assignment, depending on the severity criterion used. These data suggest that more intensive treatment for alcohol problems may improve results for individuals with more severe problems.
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 | 0.084 | 0.210 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".