MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399617401 · doi:10.1097/phh.0000000000001944

Overview of State Laws Restricting Alcohol Outlet Density in the United States

2024· article· en· W4399617401 on OpenAlexaff
K. H. Michel, Ryan Treffers, Erin O’Malley, Sabrina Adler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health Management and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsAdler
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLicenseState (computer science)StatuteAgency (philosophy)LawBusinessPolitical scienceComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Complementing the extensive research literature demonstrating that increased alcohol outlet density is associated with excessive alcohol consumption and related harms, this article synthesizes information on the types of alcohol outlet density restrictions in US state-level laws. DESIGN: Statutes and regulations related to alcohol outlet density in all 50 states and the District of Columbia in effect as of January 1, 2022, were collected using Westlaw. State-level density restrictions were coded according to 4 variables and overlaid with existing research on state-specific local authority to regulate outlet density. Alcohol outlet density laws in Michigan and Massachusetts were analyzed in detail as case studies. SETTING: United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: US state-level licensing laws restricting alcohol outlet density. RESULTS: Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia have state-level licensing laws that limit alcohol outlet density. Of those, 25 have population-based restrictions, 8 have distance-based restrictions, 7 have quotas, and 6 require the licensing agency to consider density-related factors. Within the same group of 34 jurisdictions, 22 apply restrictions to both on- and off-premises outlets, 5 apply them only to on-premises outlets, and 7 apply them only to off-premises outlets. Among the 32 states where localities lack authority to license alcohol outlets, two-thirds have state-level laws restricting outlet density. State-level density restrictions also exist in approximately two-thirds of the states where localities have licensing authority. Case studies of Michigan and Massachusetts highlight how state-level density restrictions operate in practice. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of jurisdictions have state-level alcohol outlet density restrictions, with population-based restrictions being the most common. In addition, outlet density restrictions may exist regardless of limits on local control and whether localities with authority to enact density restrictions have done so. Policymakers and others can reference this assessment to identify examples and opportunities to strengthen the alcohol policy environment in any given state.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 venueJournal of Public Health Management and PracticeSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207