MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339036085 · doi:10.1111/acer.13067

Estimation of Unrecorded Alcohol Consumption in Low‐, Middle‐, and High‐Income Economies for 2010

2016· article· en· W2339036085 on OpenAlexaff
Jürgen Rehm, Elisabeth Clare Larsen, Candace Lewis‐Laietmark, Paul Gheorghe, Vladimir Poznyak, Dag Rekve, Alexandra Fleischmann

Bibliographic record

VenueAlcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMental Health Research CanadaPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsEstimationAlcohol consumptionConsumption (sociology)EconomicsAlcoholChemistrySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Consumption of unrecorded alcohol is prevalent, especially in low-income countries (LIC). Monitoring and reduction of unrecorded consumption have been asked for in the World Health Organization (WHO) global strategy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. To date, only a few countries have installed monitoring systems, however. METHODS: As part of the WHO global monitoring, an expert survey using the nominal group technique, a variant of Delphi studies, was conducted to assess level and characteristics of unrecorded consumption in 46 member states. One hundred experts responded. Descriptive statistics and repeated analysis of covariance were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The study showed feasibility of the chosen methodology to elicit information of unrecorded consumption with experts responding for 74% of the countries. Response rate was lower for LIC. Compared to prior WHO estimates, experts tended to estimate higher unrecorded consumption for LIC, and lower unrecorded consumption for high-income countries. Unrecorded consumption was seen as a financial, public health, and social problem by the majority of experts. Homemade alcohol was the most prevalent subcategory of unrecorded consumption globally. CONCLUSIONS: The chosen methodology was feasible, and new information about consumption of unrecorded consumption could be gathered. There is still a need for increasing efforts of national monitoring, especially in LIC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlcoholism Clinical and Experimental ResearchSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207