MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2272938561 · doi:10.1177/0091450915600119

Typology of Canadian Alcohol Users

2015· article· en· W2272938561 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marilyn Fortin, Richard E. Bélanger, Stéphane Moulin

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Drug Problems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalThe Quebec Population Health Research Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologySociocultural evolutionMultiple correspondence analysisPsychologyPopulationHuman factors and ergonomicsSocial psychologyDemographyPoison controlGeographyEnvironmental healthSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The aim of this paper is to propose a multidimensional typology of drinking in Canada according to use, contexts, and motivations to drink, and to explore the extent to which these profiles are associated with gender and age. Methods: Data are drawn from the 2005 Canadian Survey as part of the project “Gender, Alcohol, and Culture: An International Study.” The subsample consisted of 876 men and 848 women. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) were undertaken to ascertain drinking profiles. Results: MCA and HCA identified six sociocultural drinking profiles in which distinctive drinking patterns, contexts, and motivations were observed. Conclusions: The variability of drinking styles in Canadian society demonstrates cohabitation and hybridization of “wet” and “dry” cultures—“ideal types” of two drinking cultures. This study revealed the complexity of drinking practices among the Canadian population and the necessity of focusing on social dimensions in order to enhance our understanding of alcohol use.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Drug ProblemsSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207