MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142060991 · doi:10.1081/ja-100108433

CAN ALCOHOL PRICE POLICIES BE USED TO REDUCE DRUNK DRIVING? EVIDENCE FROM CANADA<sup>*</sup>

2001· article· en· W2142060991 on OpenAlexaffabout
Manuella Adrian, Brian S. Ferguson, Minghao Her

Bibliographic record

VenueSubstance Use & Misuse · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrunk drivingAlcoholDrunk driversPrice elasticity of demandPopulationAlcohol consumptionConfoundingEnvironmental healthInjury preventionPoison controlEconomicsDemographic economicsMedicineMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drunk driving is one of the more serious negative consequences of alcohol consumption. Since consumption of alcohol is sensitive to the price of alcohol, and the occurrence of drunk driving is sensitive to the level of alcohol consumption, the possibility exists for alcohol pricing policies to be used to reduce drunk driving in the population. This paper reviews the evidence on this possibility in the literature and adds results based on data from the Canadian province of Ontario. Multiple regression analysis of time series data for Ontario from 1972 to 1990 indicate that, controlling for income, the proportion of young males in the population, changes in the minimum drinking age, and other confounding variables, increasing the price of alcohol has a significant effect in reducing alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents (elasticity = - 1.2, p < .05) and alcohol-related traffic offenses (elasticity = -0.50, p < .05). Overall, the evidence strongly supports the view that alcohol tax and pricing policies can be used to reduce the extent of drunk driving.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations33
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSubstance Use & MisuseSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207