Halfway there – The evolution of local alcohol control in California. Part II: Stages and factors in development, 1980-2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wittman, F. (2016). Halfway there – The evolution of local alcohol control in California. Part II: Stages and factors in development, 1980-2015. The International Journal Of Alcohol And Drug Research, 5(3), 109-116. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v5i3.235From 1980 to 2015 California cities have been increasing their capacity for preventive local control to reduce harms attributable to retail alcohol outlets. We describe a four-stage process that has evolved from reactive zoning to preventive zoning. Starting about 1980, communities turned to local zoning following the California Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Department’s struggles to stem growing problems with new types of rapidly proliferating outlets in rapidly-changing cities. (See Wittman [2016] for the function of local zoning in the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Department (ABC) system for licensing retail alcohol outlets). Community coalitions teamed with local public officials to reduce problems through “local control” ordinances based on conditional-use permits for retail alcohol outlets. Working in coordination with ABC licensing procedures, cities learned to use their zoning ordinances to draw effective boundaries for outlet location and type of setting, to limit outlet density, and to impose preventive restrictions on outlet design and operation. The California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs and the California alcohol policy advocacy community helped develop local control into a statewide movement. This paper reviews local control’s statewide progress to date and considers its prospects for future development to prevent harm in California cities. We conclude cities are about halfway to achieving harm-reduction benefits available from self-sustaining regulatory infrastructures grounded in participatory administration of local land-use law.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".