MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The case for minimum unit prices on alcohol in South Africa

2021· article· en· W3182265399 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Medical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeavy drinkingUnit of alcoholAlcohol consumptionConsumption (sociology)Unit (ring theory)AlcoholQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineEnvironmental healthUnit priceDistribution (mathematics)Binge drinkingDemographySocioeconomicsInjury preventionPoison controlEconomicsGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although only about a third of South African (SA) adults indicate that they consume alcohol, heavy drinking is common. As a result, society carries large alcohol-related mortality and economic burdens. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of a minimum unit price (MUP) on alcohol, aimed at reducing the prevalence of heavy drinking. METHODS: The study calculates unit values, defined as total monthly alcohol expenditure per household, divided by the household's total monthly alcohol consumption, for four categories of drinking households (moderate, intermediate, occasional heavy and regular heavy), using wave 4 data (2015) from the National Income Dynamics Study. A cumulative distribution of the unit values is derived for each of the four categories of drinking households. A number of hypothetical MUPs are imposed, and the impact of these MUPs on the consumption of the different categories of drinking households is estimated, taking cognisance of the fact that these households respond differently to price changes. Moderately drinking households tend to be more price sensitive than regular heavy-drinking households. RESULTS: Occasional and regular heavy-drinking households comprise a quarter of all households (and half of all drinking households) in SA, but consume 84% of all alcohol consumed in the country. There are large differences in the calculated average price of alcohol between different categories of drinking households, ranging from ZAR12.00 per standard drink among moderately drinking households to ZAR1.53 per standard drink among regular heavy-drinking households. An MUP of ZAR3.00 (alternatively ZAR10.00) per standard drink is estimated to reduce alcohol consumption by 11.9% (21.8%) among regular heavy-drinking households, by 3.1% (11.6%) among occasional heavy-drinking households, by 2.3% (15.9%) among intermediate-drinking households and by 0.3% (6.1%) among moderately drinking households. CONCLUSIONS: An MUP on alcohol is not a silver bullet, but could have a significant impact on reducing the consumption of alcohol among regular heavy-drinking households, and to a lesser extent among occasional heavy-drinking and intermediate-drinking households. The government should strongly consider implementing such a policy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.263 · 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