Power, interests and representations in the construction of alcopop as public problem in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alcopops are malt-based or spirit-based sugary beverages whose consumption has led to numerous policies in different Western countries. This article examines the representational and socio-political dynamics surrounding the sale of alcopops that led to restrictive policies in Canada (2017–2020). Using qualitative methods during this period, including interviews with key players in the field of alcohol policy, analysis of press articles and review of legislative documents, we trace the evolution of public and political discourse on alcopops. We shed light on the role of social actors—mainly public-health organizations and the alcohol industry—defending their own interests to influence policy-making. A multi-theoretical framework is used to analyze how alcopops emerged as a public problem. This framework integrates Herbert Blumer's theoretical perspective on social problems, Serge Moscovici's social representation theory and Stevens and Zampini’s political constellation model. Through an analysis of the socio-political context in Quebec, we reveal the complex interplay between public health imperatives and the interests of the alcohol industry. This should serve as a model to study public problems that lead to public policies implementation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".