Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ‘Glasgow Effect’ refers to the higher levels of morbidity and mortality in the deprived post-industrial region of west central Scotland, which exceed levels which might be explained by deprivation alone. The figures are so significant that they skew the overall picture of Scotland's health and they reflect a slower rate of health improvement in Glasgow than in the rest of the UK dating from the 1980s. This encapsulates the essence of the first part of Ken Barrie's book. Their extraordinary concentration of alcohol problems has led to Scotland pursuing solutions with a far greater urgency and creativity than the rest of the UK. He describes, for example, the pilot to increase the purchase age for alcohol from off-sales between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays which led to substantial reductions in anti-social behaviour, and the Scottish Government's proposal to reduce the drink driving limit to 50 mg/100 ml. The second half focuses on recovery, interventions and specialist treatment, starting with a discussion of the trans-theoretical model, but broadening out into self-change and self-help, concluding that the resolution of addiction is lengthy and complex and likely also to involve fundamental changes in personal well-being and in the recovering addict's role in society. It is interesting that Barrie identifies the health care workforce (outside of specialist services) as one of the main barriers to the treatment of alcohol problems. Coming back in his summary to the alcohol problem in Scotland, he concludes that it is ‘the culture’. He reflects that the drinking culture has evolved from commercial pressures, which have led to cheaper alcohol and easier access to it. There are however, ways to change culture and the Scottish Government is introducing a number of measures including minimum pricing to bring this about. The results of this and the effects on policy in the rest of the UK will prove interesting and hopefully, positive.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.030 |
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".