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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to reflect on the past decade of research and community action on alcohol and especially on some of the presentations given in the three previous international meetings on community action: in Ontario 1989, San Diego 1992, and Greve Florence 1995. The projects reported on are diverse, reflecting the different cultures represented, but there are also common strands. Among these common strands is the growing consensus that at the heart of successful evaluated community action projects is a process of reciprocal and respectful communication: between different community sectors and also between the community and researchers. While there is increased acknowledgment of the knowledge community sectors bring to planning and implementing community action, there is also an increasing focus on the role of the researcher in providing research-based knowledge to facilitate the development of effective community strategies to reduce alcohol-use-related harm. This is in contrast to a research role which emphasizes only outcome evaluation. Another development apparent through the years covered in the international meeting is the use of more naturalistic approaches to evaluation in acknowledgment that experimental design may not be feasible or scientifically appropriate for the evaluation of community action projects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it