MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015082966 · doi:10.1159/000321463

Avoidable Cost of Alcohol Abuse in Canada

2010· article· en· W2015082966 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jürgen Rehm, Jayadeep Patra, William Gnam, Anna Sarnocinska-Hart, Svetlana Popova

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Addiction Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental healthPsychological interventionAlcohol abuseMedicineAlcoholConsumption (sociology)ProductivityAlcohol consumptionPopulationEconomic costBusinessPsychiatryEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To estimate avoidable burden and avoidable costs of alcohol abuse in Canada for the year 2002. METHODS: A policy effectiveness approach was used. The impact of six effective and cost-effective alcohol policy interventions aimed to reduce alcohol consumption was modeled. In addition, the effect of privatized alcohol sales that would increase alcohol consumption and alcohol-attributable costs was also modeled. The effects of these interventions were compared with the baseline (aggregate) costs obtained from the second Canadian Study of Social Costs Attributable to Substance Abuse. RESULTS: It was estimated that by implementing six cost-effective policies from about 900 million to two billion Canadian dollars per year could be saved in Canada. The greatest savings due to the implementation of these interventions would be achieved in the lowering of productivity losses, followed by health care, and criminality. Substantial increases in burden and cost would occur if Canadian provinces were to privatize alcohol sales. CONCLUSION: The implementation of proven effective population-based interventions would reduce alcohol-attributable burden and its costs in Canada to a considerable degree.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Addiction ResearchSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207