Halfway there – The evolution of local alcohol control in California. Part I: The system as it has developed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wittman, F. (2016). Halfway there – The evolution of local alcohol control in California. Part I: The system as it has developed. The International Journal Of Alcohol And Drug Research, 5(3), 101-107. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v5i3.228Local control over retail alcohol sales in California cities provides substantial capacity to reduce and prevent alcohol-related harm. This paper shows how local control works in California to prevent harm at retail alcohol outlets. Prior to issuing a retail license to an outlet operator, the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Department (ABC) waits until the local jurisdiction (city or county) issues a land-use permit (also called a zoning permit or use permit). Localities have discretionary authority to impose preventive “conditions” on the use permit to protect public health and safety by imposing restrictions on setting design, operation, and hours of operation for the retail alcohol outlet. Within the state/local control system, city options include Level 1 permissive zoning (no restrictions), Level 2 problem-solving zoning (restrictions on new/expanded outlets), and Level 3 community oversight (restrictions on existing and new outlets). Since 1980 the scope of local control has progressed from nil (Level 1 permissive zoning) to Level 3 preventive surveillance for all outlets. Higher-level zoning requires local politics in which the ABC is not involved. A companion article (Wittman, 2016) describes the evolution of local control for retail alcohol availability in California’s local jurisdictions from 1980 to 2015.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".