Public opinion on the health benefits of moderate drinking: results from a Canadian National Population Health Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To explore beliefs about the health benefits of drinking alcohol in the Canadian population. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a national population health survey. PARTICIPANTS: Canadians age 12 or older (weighted n = 72375) in all provinces but Alberta excluding those living in remote regions, native reserves and armed forces bases. MEASURES: Responses to questions concerning the definition of moderate drinking and the belief that moderate drinking can be good for health. Self-reports of age, gender, province of residence, quantity and frequency of drinking, health problems and indicators of alcohol dependence. FINDINGS: Fifty-seven per cent of respondents believed that moderate drinking has health benefits. Forty-seven per cent defined moderate drinking as drinking less than one drink a day and believed this to be good for health. Twelve per cent defined moderate drinking as one or more drinks a day and believed this is good for health. Belief in the health benefits of moderate drinking was more common among men, those age 45 or older, residents of Ontario and Quebec, more frequent drinkers and those with ischaemic heart disease. Those who believed in the health benefits of at least one drink a day were more often males, older persons and frequent, heavy drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: Belief in the health benefits of moderate drinking is generally associated with a conservative definition of moderate drinking. However, some drinkers at risk for alcohol problems may be influenced to drink by the belief that this can have health benefits or use this belief as an excuse for drinking.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".