The social and economic impacts of private and public liquor retailing in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liquor retailing in British Columbia is largely controlled by the Province of British Columbia.Recent changes in the past five years have allowed additional private liquor retailers to co-exist with government run liquor retail stores.Political, union, and proprivatization lobbying have all had effects on sales and liquor distribution.Private liquor stores and government liquor stores may sell the same products but that is as far as the similarities go.The public and private sector differ greatly in regards to product selection, price, employment and regulations.Currently the private sector follows archaic regulations while the British Columbia government run stores continue to expand in size and location.The private sector sits idle bound in red tape by issues such as limited locations for operation, size constraints, high product cost and political influence.The general public is unaware of the differences between public and private liquor retailing and need to be made aware of the social and economic effects of public and private retailing.The provincial government and union lobbyists justify the government's existence in the liquor market by citing issues such as health hazards and drunk driving.This government control generates a sizable income in the neighbourhood of $2.25 billion dollars per year for the province.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".