MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2792505335

Too Young to Die: Regression Discontinuity of a Two-Part Minimum Legal Drinking Age Policy and the Causal Effect of Alcohol on Health

2018· preprint· en· W2792505335 on OpenAlexaff
Gawain Heckley, Ulf‐G. Gerdtham, Johan Jarl

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Economics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegression discontinuity designPurchasingAlcohol consumptionConsumption (sociology)DemographyOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthDemographic economicsPsychologyAlcoholMedicineEconomicsPolitical scienceLawOperations managementSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the impact of Sweden's unique two-part Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) policy on alcohol consumption and health using regression discontinuity design. In Sweden on-licence purchasing of alcohol is legalised at 18 and off-licence purchasing is legalised later at 20 years of age. We find an immediate and significant 6% jump in participation and a larger increase in number of days drinking at age 18 of about 16% but no large jumps at age 20. No discernible increases in mortality at age 18 or 20 are found but hospital visits due to external causes do see an increase at both 18 and 20 years. Compared to previous findings for single MLDAs the alcohol impacts we find are smaller and the health impacts less severe. The findings suggest that a two-part MLDA can help young adults in their transition to unrestricted alcohol and help contain the negative health impacts that have been observed elsewhere.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→