Bibliographic record
Abstract
A context In 1975 when the International Study of the Alcohol Control Experiences (ISACE) was initiated, the experience in many established economies was that of several decades of relaxation of state and informal controls combined with rising rates of alcohol consumption. A parallel development in many jurisdictions was the rise of social, chronic and acute problems related to alcohol consumption. A unique contribution of the project was the focus on several forces in seven jurisdictions: systems of alcohol production and supply, drinking cultures, state and local controls, and prevention and treatment initiatives. In addition to numerous published papers and working documents, it produced an edited volume of the social history of alcohol control in seven countries (Single et al. 1981) and a synthetic comparative volume (Makela et al. 1981). The project focused on developments in five countries (Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland) and two regional jurisdictions (California and Ontario) for the period 1950–1975. The structure of the comparative volume (Makela et al. 1981) signals the main themes: alcohol consumption, production and trade, alcohol-related problems, alcohol control policies, effects of alcohol control policies, and the post-war era and future. The project was not designed to be global in its analyses; nevertheless its findings and main interpretations had global implications. Six conclusions from the comparative perspective (Makela et al. 1981, 110–112) are still relevant today: the duality of the role of the state’s action on alcohol; the growing conflict between increased concern about alcohol problems and economic interests in alcohol trade; the overall increase in alcohol consumption which is likely related to complex cultural, social and political phenomena and a need for caution in making policy changes; the emerging importance of event-based
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".