MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214240135 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(21)00159-6

Hazardous alcohol use and alcohol-related harm in rural and remote communities: a scoping review

2021· article· en· W3214240135 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthPublic Health OntarioImpactUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityMcMaster UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardous wasteHarmPublic healthAlcoholRural areaResidencePoison controlOccupational safety and healthRural health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alcohol use is a major risk factor for death and disease worldwide and alcohol-related harms appear to be more prevalent in rural and remote, relative to urban, communities. This Review synthesised international research on rural-urban disparities in hazardous and harmful alcohol use and risk factors for these outcomes within rural and remote communities. 280 studies from 49 countries were included in the Scoping Review. Most studies (60%) found rural, relative to urban, residence to be associated with an increased likelihood of hazardous alcohol use or alcohol-related harm. This proportion increased between 1990 and 2019 and varied by country, age group, and outcome type, being highest in Australia, among young adults, and for more severe alcohol-related harms, such as drink driving and alcohol-related suicide. Improved public health strategies to reduce the burden of alcohol use in rural communities are required but their efficacy will depend on how well they are tailored to the unique needs of the region they are implemented in.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.202 · 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