Strategies to reduce alcohol-related harms and costs in Canada: A comparison of provincial policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Giesbrecht, N., Wettlaufer, A., Simpson, S., April, N., Asbridge, M., Cukier, S., Mann, R., McAllister, J., Murie, A., Pauley, C., Plamondon, L., Stockwell, T., Thomas, G., Thompson, K., & Vallance, K. (2016). Strategies to reduce alcohol-related harms and costs in Canada: A comparison of provincial policies. The International Journal Of Alcohol And Drug Research, 5(2), 33-45. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v5i2.221Aims: To compare Canadian provinces across 10 research-based alcohol policy and program dimensions.Design and Measures: The 10 Canadian provinces were assessed on the following 10 policy dimensions: alcohol pricing; alcohol control system; physical availability; drinking and driving; marketing and advertising; legal drinking age; screening, brief intervention, and referrals; server training, challenge, and refusal programs; provincial alcohol strategy; warning labels and signs. Data were collected from official documents, including provincial legislation, regulations, and policy, and strategy documents. Three international experts on alcohol policy contributed to refining the protocol. Provincial scores were independently determined by two team members along a 10-point scale for each dimension, and the scores were expressed as a percentage of the ideal. Weighting of dimensions according to scope of impact and effectiveness was applied to obtain the final scores. National and provincial scores were calculated for each dimension and consolidated into overall averages.Findings: Overall, the consolidated national mean is 47.2% of the ideal, with Ontario scoring highest at 55.9%, and Québec lowest at 36.2%. Across dimensions, Legal Drinking Age and Challenge and Refusal Programs scored highest at 75% and 61%, respectively, while Warning Labels and Signs scored lowest at 18% of the ideal. Pricing, rated third highest among dimensions at 57%, should nevertheless remain a priority for improvement, given it is weighted highest in terms of effectiveness and scope.Conclusions and Implications: Policy dimension scores vary among the provinces, with substantial room for improvement in all. Since spring 2013, several provinces have taken steps to implement specific alcohol policies. Concerted action involving multiple stakeholders and alcohol policies is required to reduce the burden of alcohol problems across Canada.
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".