Do individual liquor permit systems help Indigenous communities to manage alcohol?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Liquor permits were once used throughout Scandinavia and North America for managing alcohol, but largely disappeared in the late 20th century. Today, they are used in some Indigenous communities in Nunavut, Canada and the Northern Territory, Australia. This paper examines the extent to which liquor permits: (i) contribute to reducing alcohol-related harms in Indigenous communities; and (ii) offer a viable mechanism for managing alcohol in Indigenous communities. DESIGN AND METHODS: The study draws on published and unpublished international literature on liquor permit systems in Indigenous communities, and on field visits to northern territory (NT) communities. RESULTS: Apart from one anecdotal report, the study found no evidence that liquor permit systems in Nunavut communities have reduced alcohol-related problems. In the NT, they have reduced alcohol-related harms in some communities. However, management of liquor permit systems generates significant administrative demands in communities. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Effectiveness of liquor permit systems is a product of five factors: permits themselves; agencies and procedures for issuing and managing permits; agencies and procedures for supplying liquor; enforcement of permit conditions, and the presence of other agencies-legal and illegal-affecting supply and consumption of liquor. Liquor permits continue to be valued by some Indigenous communities for managing alcohol. This study suggests that they can do so provided: (i) agencies administering permits have adequate support; (ii) controls over non-legal purchasing and consumption of liquor are effective, and (iii) the permit system is viewed in the community as legitimate, equitable and transparent.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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".