MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110009501 · doi:10.1111/dar.12304

Are alcohol outlet densities strongly associated with alcohol‐related outcomes? A critical review of recent evidence

2015· review· en· W2110009501 on OpenAlexaff
Gerhard Gmel, John Holmes, Joseph Studer

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug and Alcohol Review · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsHarmAssociation (psychology)PsychologyDemographyGeographyMedicineSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ISSUES: There have been reviews on the association between density of alcohol outlets and harm including studies published up to December 2008. Since then the number of publications has increased dramatically. The study reviews the more recent studies with regard to their utility to inform policy. APPROACH: A systematic review found more than 160 relevant studies (published between January 2009 and October 2014). The review focused on: (i) outlet density and assaultive or intimate partner violence; (ii) studies including individual level data; or (iii) 'natural experiments'. KEY FINDINGS: Despite overall evidence for an association between density and harm, there is little evidence on causal direction (i.e. whether demand leads to more supply or increased availability increases alcohol use and harm). When outlet types (e.g. bars, supermarkets) are analysed separately, studies are too methodologically diverse and partly contradictory to permit firm conclusions besides those pertaining to high outlet densities in areas such as entertainment districts. Outlet density commonly had little effect on individual-level alcohol use, and the few 'natural experiments' on restricting densities showed little or no effects. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Although outlet densities are likely to be positively related to alcohol use and harm, few policy recommendations can be given as effects vary across study areas, outlet types and outlet cluster size. Future studies should examine in detail outlet types, compare different outcomes associated with different strengths of association with alcohol, analyse non-linear effects and compare different methodologies. Purely aggregate-level studies examining total outlet density only should be abandoned. [Gmel G, Holmes J, Studer J. Are alcohol outlet densities strongly associated with alcohol-related outcomes? A critical review of recent evidence. Drug Alcohol Rev 2015].

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.132
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.132
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0170.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.423
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

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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations195
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug and Alcohol ReviewSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207