Alcohol controls and violence in Nunavut: a comparison of wet and dry communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine if communities in Nunavut that prohibit the importation of alcoholic beverages have less violence relative to communities that allow alcohol importation. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cross-sectional study based on community-level records of violent crimes known to the police. METHODS: Violence was measured using community-level records of homicide, assault and sexual assault as reported to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 23 communities in Nunavut for the years 1986 to 2006. Crude-rate comparisons were made between wet communities (which allow alcohol importation) and dry communities (which prohibit alcohol importation) and contrasted with national rates for context. RESULTS: Wet communities in Nunavut recorded rates of violent crime that were higher than the rates recorded by dry communities. Relative to dry communities, wet communities' overall sexual assault rate was 1.48 (95% CI = 1.38-1.60) times higher, the serious assault rate was 2.10 (95% CI = 1.88-2.35) times higher and the homicide rate was 2.88 (95% CI = 1.18-8.84) times higher. Although safer than wet communities, dry communities reported rates of violence that were higher than national rates including a serious assault rate that was double the national rate (3.25 per 1,000 vs. 1.44 per 1,000) and a sexual assault rate that was at least seven times as high as the national rate (7.58 per 1,000 vs. 0.88 per 1,000). CONCLUSIONS: As elsewhere in the Arctic, communities in Nunavut that prohibited alcohol were less violent than those that allowed alcohol importation. Even with prohibition, dry communities recorded rates of violence much greater than the national average.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".