MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525588256 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v9n5p96

Alcohol and Canadian Health

2016· article· en· W2525588256 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
James McIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApprehensionDiseaseMedicineCoronary heart diseaseDiabetes mellitusAlcoholHealth problemsEnvironmental healthStroke (engine)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The role of alcohol use as a cause of disease and a determinant of individual health has been examined by a large number of researchers and is an important policy issue.METHODS: The effect of alcohol use on the four most important diseases that afflict Canadians is examined by applying finite mixture probability models to data from the 2011-12 Canadian Community Health Survey. The effect on self-reported health is also considered.RESULTS: Regular drinking behaviour is shown to be associated with lower probabilities of having diabetes, coronary heart disease, or stroke, although it may lead to a higher probability of having cancer for some sub-populations. The net prophylactic effect of moderate alcohol use on diseases diseases other than cancer is positive and significant. Men and women in all age groups report higher health status scores as a result of regular alcohol use. Regular drinking also leads to fewer doctor visits.CONCLUSIONS: The fears and apprehension expressed by so many health researchers ignore the substantial beneficial effects that regular drinkers experience. Alcohol policy should therefore be less repressive more sympathetic to consumer wants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.002

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsFrench-language works237,207