Proceedings of the 13th annual conference of INEBRIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many young people in England do not use services associated with delivery of alcohol IBA (also called screening and brief intervention).The project tested whether IBA can be delivered to 18-30 year-old, on busy city streets, by trained workers who were not healthcare professionals, without framing it as an 'alcohol reduction' intervention.This approach may be referred to as 'IBA Direct' .Materials and methods: Numbers of participants in the intervention were recorded on a monitoring sheet, along with the individual's gender, age and AUDIT score.The evaluator asked some participants to complete a brief, anonymous feedback form about their experience of the intervention. Results:The project was delivered over 3 days, amassing a total of 24 h across 2 Saturdays and 1 Sunday in August 2015.Four workers were present on all days.In total, 402 brief interventions were completed; however, data from 379 participants were recorded.Forty-one percent were female (21 % missing data) and 42 % were aged in their teens or twenties.A participant feedback form was completed by 61 people.Ninety-three percent (n = 57) rated the service as 'Excellent' or 'Good' .All respondents who answered the question on the suitability of the setting of the service (n = 58) said it was suitable.Nine out of ten respondents (n = 55) stated they would participate in this service in a public setting again.Conclusions: The evaluation of this project has demonstrated the feasibility and high acceptability of IBA Direct being delivered by non-health workers to the public on the streets of London.There were high levels of engagement at each location and among those aged 18-30.Important facilitators were considered to be the 'branding' of the intervention and materials, for example, framed as a 'health quiz' not 'alcohol reduction' and incentives to draw people in such as free 'mocktails' (soft drinks).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.325 | 0.167 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".