Trends in public opinion on alcohol issues during a period of increasing access to alcohol: <scp>O</scp>ntario, <scp>C</scp>anada, 1996–2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The aim of our paper is to present trend data concerning public opinion on alcohol policy in the Canadian province of Ontario over a 16-year period (1996-2011), to assess if the level of support for alcohol control policies changed over this period and if any changes in public support for alcohol policy parallel real changes in alcohol distribution in Ontario. DESIGN AND METHODS: Selected policy-related items from 10 probability surveys of Ontario adults were analysed by means of logistic regression. RESULTS: A significant decline was found for attitudes supporting restricting corner stores sales and government control of liquor stores. A weaker decline was seen for attitudes towards reducing the number of places to buy alcohol. However, an increasing trend for attitudes favouring the status quo or greater control through taxes and hours of sale was found. There was no significant trend for attitudes towards maintaining the current level or reducing the number of liquor or beer stores. While there was some variation in trends in support by demographic characteristics and drinking level, not one sector stood out. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A gradual erosion of support is evident and concurrent with gradual increase in access to alcohol in Ontario during the time-period under study. The decline in support for alcohol control measures seems to be a general rather than a focused development. It appears that this was largely due to a shift in a greater percentage supporting the status quo, not a move towards increasing access to alcohol.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".