Trends in public opinion on alcohol policy measures: Ontario 1989-1998.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This article presents trend data concerning public opinion on alcohol policy in the Canadian province of Ontario over a 10-year period (1989-98), highlights the currently debated issue of private venues for retail alcohol sales and assesses correspondence between public opinion and actual and proposed policy decisions. METHOD: Selected policy-related items from nine probability surveys on representative samples of male and female Ontario adults (range of unweighted n 's: 953 to 1,947) were analyzed by means of logistic regression. RESULTS: We found strong support for the status quo for a number of items, including beer and liquor store hours, corner store sales and taxes. Across all years, less than 6% of the total sample wanted to lower the legal drinking age. Over time, a linear trend showed a gradual but not entirely consistent development of attitudes among the Ontario public, favoring relaxation of some controls. However, contrary to this trend, disapproval of retail sales in corner stores increased significantly from 1992 to 1996. Demographic breakdown shows that relaxation of controls is most favored by those who report consumption of five or more drinks per occasion at least weekly over the past 12 months, and most strongly opposed by women and nondrinkers. Of those who seldom or never consume five or more drinks per occasion, the majority express satisfaction with the status quo. CONCLUSIONS: These data call into question the suitability of changes in alcohol policy that would diminish controls. It is of particular interest that there seems to be little public support for privatization proposals in the province. Public opinion against comer store sales of alcoholic beverages increased over time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".