Alcohol use and alcohol-related harm in rural and remote communities: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Alcohol-related harm is a major public health concern and appears to be particularly problematic in rural and remote communities. Evidence from several countries has shown that the prevalence of harmful alcohol use and alcohol-attributable hospitalisations and emergency department visits are higher in rural and remote communities than in urban centres. The extents of this rural-urban disparity in alcohol-related harm as well as the factors that mediate it are poorly understood. The objective of this scoping review is to synthesise the international research on the factors that influence the prevalence or risk of alcohol-related harm in rural and remote communities. This will help to clarify the conceptual landscape of rural and remote alcohol research and identify the gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will access published literature through search strategies developed for Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Sociological Abstracts. There will be no date, country or language restrictions placed on the search. Title and abstract, followed by full-text screening, will be conducted by two independent reviewers to evaluate all identified articles against a set of prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data from selected articles will be extracted and compiled into a final manuscript that adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of this review will be helpful in guiding future research on rural and remote alcohol use and alcohol-related harm, which will inform more effective, evidence-based public health strategies to reduce alcohol-related harm in rural and remote communities. The results will be disseminated via field-specific conference presentations and peer-reviewed publication.
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 | 0.101 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 0.020 |
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".