Alcohol and inequity in the process of development: Contributions from ethnographic research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schmidt, L. A. & Room, R. (2012). Alcohol and inequity in the process of development: Contributions from ethnographic research. International Journal of Alcohol and Drug Research, 1(1), 41-55. doi: 10.7895/ijadr.v1i1.38 (http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v1i1.38) Drawing on 33 ethnographic studies of drinking in low- and middle-income countries around the world, this paper describes common themes pertaining to economic development, alcohol consumption and related harms. Three crosscutting themes emerged that shed light on why alcohol consumption and problems tend to increase during periods of economic development. First, from the perspective of the global alcohol industry, developing countries often become viewed as emerging consumer markets. Commercially produced alcohol tends to gain a higher status than traditional locally produced beverages, replacing them as resources allow. Drinking and beverage choices thus both symbolize new social divisions and help create them. Second, economic relations change whereby women’s interests often lose ground as men’s drinking increases. Commercialization of production may mean that women lose control over what was traditionally a home-produced supply. Resources that once stayed in the family or community may be exported as commercial profits. Third, alcohol often becomes both a source and symbol of political tensions and class divisions. Governments may become dependent on commercial alcohol revenues and willing to tolerate high levels of alcohol-related harm. In response, social and cultural movements, often promulgated by women, spontaneously emerge from within developing societies to counterbalance elite interests in the alcohol trade and push against external market forces.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".