MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2306924562 · doi:10.1177/0091450915587535

Reform and Resistance

2015· article· en· W2306924562 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter d’Abbs

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Drug Problems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedressResistance (ecology)ConceptualizationSociologyPower (physics)Everyday lifeIndigenousOrder (exchange)Social controlEnvironmental ethicsSocial scienceLawPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alcohol policies and control measures are attempts to change what is deemed (by processes that are themselves open to analysis) to be problematic drinking behavior. Attempts to bring about behavioral or cultural shifts, however, typically generate resistance, which may take place as small local actions by individuals in their everyday lives, or evolve into broader social phenomena. This article argues that, while some alcohol researchers have recognized the presence of resistance to control measures, the nature and determinants of resistance remain poorly understood. The article draws on sociological approaches to resistance in order to redress this. Theoretically, I draw in particular on de Certeau’s conceptualization of resistance as a tactical practice of everyday life. Empirically, I illustrate some key aspects of resistance by referring to manifestations of power and resistance relating to drinking by indigenous people in Fourth World settings such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. The article concludes by arguing that a sociologically informed understanding of resistance is necessary to an adequate understanding of the role and place of alcohol control policies.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.047
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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