MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224949963 · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdac052

The impact of lower strength alcohol products on alcohol purchases: ARIMA analyses based on 4 million purchases by 69 803 households, 2015–2019

2022· article· en· W4224949963 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Anderson, Amy O’Donnell, Eva Jané‐Llopis, Eileen Kaner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsAlcoholPurchasingWineUnit of alcoholBusinessAlcohol contentEnvironmental healthAlcohol consumptionFood scienceMedicineMarketingChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lowering the strength of alcohol products could lead to less alcohol being bought and drunk. In its prevention White Paper, the UK Government aims to promote a significant increase in the availability of alcohol-free and low-alcohol products by 2025. METHODS: Through descriptive analysis and ARIMA modelling of >4 million alcohol purchases from 69 803 British households, we study the potential impact of lower strength alcohol products in reducing household purchases of grams of alcohol over 2015-2019. Households are divided into predominantly beer, wine or spirits purchasers. RESULTS: Over 5 years, there were decreases in purchases of grams of alcohol within beer amongst beer-purchasing households and increases in purchases of grams of alcohol within wine and spirits amongst, respectively, wine- and spirits-purchasing households. Almost all the changes were due to beer-purchasing households buying less regular strength beer, and wine and spirits-purchasing households buying, respectively, more regular strength wine and spirits, rather than increases in purchases of no- and low-alcohol products. CONCLUSIONS: In general, lower strength alcohol products have not contributed to British households buying fewer grams of alcohol over the 5-year follow-up period during 2015-2019.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public HealthSame topicWine Industry and TourismFrench-language works237,207