MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310777143 · doi:10.1111/add.16102

Classifying alcohol control policies enacted between 2000 and 2020 in Poland and the Baltic countries to model potential impact

2022· article· en· W4310777143 on OpenAlexaff
Jürgen Rehm, Shannon Lange, Inese Gobiņa, Kinga Janik‐Koncewicz, Laura Miščikienė, Rainer Reile, Relika Stoppel, Alexander Tran, Carina Ferreira‐Borges, Domantas Jasilionis, Huan Jiang, Kawon Victoria Kim, Jakob Manthey, Maria Neufeld, Janina Petkevičienė, Ričardas Radišauskas, Robin Room, Vaida Liutkutė, Witold Zatoński, Mindaugas Štelemėkas

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismWorld Health Organization
KeywordsControl (management)Environmental healthMedicinePolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The study's aim is to identify and classify the most important alcohol control policies in the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Poland between 2000 and 2020. METHODS: Policy analysis of Baltic countries and Poland, predicting potential policy impact on alcohol consumption, all-cause mortality and alcohol-attributable hospitalizations was discussed. RESULTS: All Baltic countries implemented stringent availability restrictions on off-premises trading hours and different degrees of taxation increases to reduce the affordability of alcoholic beverages, as well as various degrees of bans on alcohol marketing. In contrast, Poland implemented few excise taxation increases or availability restrictions and, in fact, reduced stipulations on prior marketing bans. CONCLUSIONS: This classification of alcohol control policies in the Baltic countries and Poland provides a basis for future modeling of the impact of implementing effective alcohol control policies (Baltic countries), as well as the effects of loosening such policies (Poland).

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)0.000
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictionSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207