First Nations Australians’ experiences of current alcohol policy in Central Australia: evidence of self-determination?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alcohol is the leading cause of healthy years lost. There is significant variation in alcohol consumption patterns and harms in Australia, with those residing in the Northern Territory (NT), particularly First Nations Australians, experiencing higher alcohol-attributable harms than other Australians. Community leadership in the planning and implementation of health, including alcohol, policy is important to health outcomes for First Nations Australians. Self-determination, a cornerstone of the structural and social determinants of health, is necessary in the development of alcohol-related policy. However, there is a paucity of published literature regarding Indigenous Peoples self-determination in alcohol policy development. This study aims to identify the extent to which First Nations Australians experience self-determination in relation to current alcohol policy in Alice Springs/Mbantua (Northern Territory, Australia).Semi-structured qualitative yarns with First Nations Australian community members (n = 21) were undertaken. A framework of elements needed for self-determination in health and alcohol policy were applied to interview transcripts to assess the degree of self-determination in current alcohol policy in Alice Springs/Mbantua. Of the 36 elements, 33% were not mentioned in the interviews at all, 20% were mentioned as being present, and 75% were absent. This analysis identified issues of policy implementation, need for First Nations Australian leadership, and representation.Alcohol policy for First Nations Australians in the NT is nuanced and complicated. A conscious approach is needed to recognise and implement the right to self-determination, which must be led and defined by First Nations Australians.First Nations Australians' experiences of current alcohol policy in Central Australia: evidence of self-determination?
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".