MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144822683 · doi:10.1177/0022427810397952

Alcohol Outlets and Community Levels of Interpersonal Violence

2011· article· en· W2144822683 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William Alex Pridemore, Tony H. Grubesic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)PremisePoison controlAssociation (psychology)DemographyGeographyPsychologyInjury preventionInterpersonal violenceHuman factors and ergonomicsSocial psychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the association between alcohol outlets and violence. Employing Cincinnati block groups as units of analysis, the authors estimated spatially lagged regression models to determine if the variation in spatial density of alcohol outlets is related to the spatial density of simple and aggravated assaults. The authors estimated separate models for off-premise outlets, bars, and restaurants. The results revealed a positive and significant association between outlet density and assault density. This association held for simple and aggravated assaults and for total outlet density and the density of each type of outlet. Further tests showed the outlet-violence association to be stronger for off-premise outlets relative to bars and restaurants and for simple relative to aggravated assaults. Estimation of attributable fractions (AFs) showed that off-premise outlets may account for approximately one-quarter and one-third of simple and aggravated assaults, respectively.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.576
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.037 · 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

Citations118
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in Crime and DelinquencySame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207