MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106728186 · doi:10.1080/16066350802011631

Is alcohol consumption good for you? Results from the 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey

2008· article· en· W2106728186 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction Research & Theory · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlcohol consumptionEnvironmental healthPsychologyAlcoholConsumption (sociology)MedicineDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data from the Statistics Canada 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey is used to test the hypothesis that classification errors of the type noted by Fillmore et al. () could invalidate the statistical results on the effects of alcohol consumption on self-rated health and the incidence of heart disease and diabetes. The results obtained in this study show that the beneficial effects of moderate alcohol use that so many studies have found, still appear even when the correct classification of alcohol use is employed. However, parameter biases and inferential errors can occur when researchers fail to distinguish between former drinkers and never drinkers within the non-drinking group.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.437
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.049 · 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