The comparative risk assessment for alcohol as part of the Global Burden of Disease 2010 Study: What changed from the last study?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rehm, J., Borges, G., Gmel, G., Graham, K., Grant, B., Parry, C., Poznyak, V. & Room R. (2013). The comparative risk assessment for alcohol as part of the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study: What changed from the last study? International Journal of Alcohol and Drug Research, 2(1), 1-5. doi: 10.7895/ijadr.v2i1.132 (http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v2i1.132)In December 2012, the new results of the Comparative Risk Assessment (CRA) for alcohol within the Global Burden of Disease and Injury (GBD) Study 2010 were presented at a joint meeting of the GBD Group and the journal Lancet at the Royal Society in London (Lim et al., 2012). At first glance, there do not appear to be many changes to alcohol consumption as a risk factor for death and disability: it is identified as the third most important risk factor, as it was in the last CRA (World Health Organization, 2009). The burden of disease attributable to alcohol had increased, compared to the 2004 estimate (Rehm, Mathers et al., 2009), but this could be due to an increase in global population, or to variations in the methodologies behind the 2004 and 2010 estimates.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".