MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118500767 · doi:10.1080/09595230601096980

A community development approach to deal with public drug use in Box Hill

2007· article· en· W2118500767 on OpenAlexaffabout
Neil Rogers, Warren Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug and Alcohol Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsArctic Athabaskan Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmenityPunitive damagesHarm reductionHarmPublic healthPublic spacePublic relationsStakeholderEnforcementBusinessPolitical scienceMedicineLawEngineeringNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of alcohol and other drugs in public space is one that generates much heat in the public discourse and in the media. Too often the responses called for to reduce the problems of public amenity involve punitive policing and other responses that aim to engineer (mostly) young people out of these public spaces. Often local retailers are a key stakeholder group calling loudest for punitive action. In this Harm Reduction Digest Rogers and Anderson describe a community development approach taken to address these problems in Box Hill in the City of Whitehorse, near Melbourne. This approach which aimed to develop 'bridging social capital' between community retailers and other stakeholders in the area appears to have been effective in reducing harm associated with public drug use. Moreover these changes have become institutionalised and the approach has been expanded to address other public amenity problems in the area. It is a very nice example of how drug related harm can be reduced by grass roots networks of local councils, business people, law enforcement and health and welfare service providers to address these issues.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug and Alcohol ReviewSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207