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 OpenAlex
Gerhard Gmel, John Holmes, Joseph Studer

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

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.204
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