MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099337338 · doi:10.3109/10826080009147481

Measuring Alcohol-Related Harm: Test-Retest Reliability of a Popular Measure

2000· article· en· W2099337338 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSubstance Use & Misuse · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmReliability (semiconductor)Test (biology)KappaPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed the test-retest reliability of a measure of alcohol-related harm commonly used in cross-sectional surveys. Sixty-four respondents of a 1995 telephone survey participated in a second interview 3 to 5 months after the survey. Drinking status and average volume of alcohol consumed proved to be highly reliable. For the lifetime harm scale, correlation was satisfactory, and reliability fell just short of satisfactory agreement (kappa = 0.716). For a score of alcohol-related harm in the past year, poor reliability was shown (kappa = 0.484). Future research must place greater emphasis on objective indicators and on validation of the measures used.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.219 · 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