MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377225793 · doi:10.1515/9780773559974

Sober Reflections

2006· book· en· W4377225793 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill-Queen's University Press eBooks · 2006
Typebook
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alcohol policies reflect conflicting ideological, social, health, and commercial agendas. Sober Reflections describes the development of alcohol policies at the national level and in Alberta, Quebec, and Ontario between 1980 and 2000. Using qualitative research methods, the essays examine the roles of key players, including governments, NGOs, public health advocates, and representatives of the alcohol industry. The contributors base their incisive papers on interviews with representatives from public health and the government, lobbyists, researchers, media, and those in the alcohol industries, as well as on an analysis of government documents, newspaper accounts, and official statistics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.018

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill-Queen's University Press eBooksSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207