Comparing Drinking Patterns in Finland and Ontario (Canada)
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
A comparison is made of drinking patterns in Finland and Ontario (Canada). Respondents in two existing population surveys, the 1996 Joint Nordic Questionnaire and the 1996 Ontario Drug Monitor, were compared on their frequency of alcohol use in the past year, frequency of heavy drinking (6+ on Nordic survey and 5+ in Ontario), and both frequency and typical quantity of beer, wine and liquor consumption in males and females. It appeared that there are fewer nondrinkers and more weekly drinkers in the Finnish sample than in the Ontario sample. Further, both males and females in Ontario consumed 6+ drinks on one occasion more frequently than their Finnish counterparts. However, examination of the patterns of beer, wine and liquor consumption, particularly the distribution of very heavy drinking days (e.g., 12 or more drinks of liquor on one occasion), indicates that there is some evidence for periodic heavy drinking in Finnish males. Contrary to expectations, Canadian and Finnish drinking patterns appeared fairly similar. However, there was some evidence for a higher prevalence of binge drinking by Finnish men as compared with Canadian men.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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