MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399197146 · doi:10.2471/blt.24.291338

Quantifying alcohol’s harm to others: a research and policy proposal

2024· article· en· W4399197146 on OpenAlexaff
Carolin Kilian, Jakob Manthey, Charlotte Probst

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmEnvironmental healthPsychological interventionPoison controlPublic healthSuicide preventionMedicineInjury preventionPopulationAlcoholOccupational safety and healthHarm reductionHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Just under 2.5 million people die annually due to alcohol use. This global estimate, however, excludes most of the health burden borne by others than the alcohol user. Alcohol's harm to others includes a multitude of conditions, such as trauma from traffic crashes, fetal disorders due to prenatal exposure to alcohol, as well as interpersonal and intimate partner violence. While alcohol's causal role in these conditions is well-established, alcohol's harm to others' contribution to the overall health burden of alcohol remains unknown. This knowledge gap leads to a situation in which alcohol policy and prevention strategies largely focus on the reduction of alcohol's detrimental health harms on the alcohol users, neglecting affected others and population groups most vulnerable to these harms, including women and children. In this article, we seek to elucidate why estimates for alcohol's harm to others are lacking and offer guidance for future research. We also argue that a full assessment of the alcohol health burden that includes the harm caused by others' alcohol use would enhance the visibility and public awareness of such harms, and advancing the evaluation of policy interventions to mitigate them.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the World Health OrganizationSame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207