Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Prevailing for more than a half century in the United States, the medical model labels alcoholism as a disease and offers abstinence as the sole predominant cure. In 1990, a panel representing the American National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine concluded that most drinking problems were not serious enough to justify America's intensive one-size-fits-all hospital treatment programs. Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and Europe long ago ascertained problem drinking as a public health concern. Australian, British and Norwegian treatment services appear twice as likely to accept controlled drinking (CD) as corresponding services in the United States (Donovan & Heather, 1996). Since treatment policies in the former countries are also less influenced by the disease model, this difference points to the impact of Alcoholics Anonymous on treatment policy and cultural values with regard to treatment and, ultimately, the acceptance of a diversity of options for alcohol-related problems. This paper will give a brief history of alcohol treatment in the United States during the twentieth century, discuss the treatment of alcohol addiction in American society today, and examine future trends in dealing with alcohol addiction that show promise for the twenty-first century.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".