MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2314527350 · doi:10.3138/cjccj.20160304

Is Retail Alcohol Deregulation Correlated with More Crime and Traffic Injuries? Evidence from Canadian Provinces

2016· article· en· W2314527350 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Anindya Sen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPer capitaBinge drinkingDeregulationDemographyInjury preventionDistribution (mathematics)Poison controlDemographic economicsOccupational safety and healthGeographyEnvironmental healthMedicineEconomicsMathematicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data across six Canadian provinces from 1993 to 2011 are employed to estimate the effects of differences in retail alcohol distribution systems on trends in per capita violent and property crime rates and fatality and injury rates from motor vehicle accidents. OLS estimates of dummy variables representing the presence of a more deregulated retail distribution system are either statistically insignificant or significant and negative with respect to different types of crime and traffic-related injuries. These results are robust to the inclusion of different covariates and province/year fixed effects. Estimates from multivariate regression models also reveal that per capita alcohol sales are not higher in provinces with deregulated retail access. Finally, data from the Canadian Community Health Surveys do not reveal any consistent differences between regulated and deregulated provinces in binge drinking among teens and young adults. In summary, provinces with more deregulated retail access to alcohol do not experience worse outcomes than jurisdictions with more controlled availability.

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)0.009
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→