Classifying Alcohol Control Policies with Respect to Expected Changes in Consumption and Alcohol-Attributable Harm: The Example of Lithuania, 2000–2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the high levels of alcohol use, alcohol-attributable mortality and burden of disease, and detrimental drinking patterns, Lithuania implemented a series of alcohol control policies within a relatively short period of time, between 2008 and 2019. Based on their expected impact on alcohol consumption and alcohol-attributable harm, as well as their target population, these policies have been classified using a set of objective criteria and expert opinion. The classification criteria included: positive vs. negative outcomes, mainly immediate vs. delayed outcomes, and general population vs. specific group outcomes. The judgement of the alcohol policy experts converged on the objective criteria, and, as a result, two tiers of intervention were identified: Tier 1-highly effective general population interventions with an anticipated immediate impact; Tier 2-other interventions aimed at the general population. In addition, interventions directed at specific populations were identified. This adaptable methodological approach to alcohol control policy classification is intended to provide guidance and support for the evaluation of alcohol policies elsewhere, to lay the foundation for the critical assessment of the policies to improve health and increase life expectancy, and to reduce crime and violence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".