MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407718912 · doi:10.1111/dar.14024

Evaluation of the national alcohol control strategy (Green Paper on Alcohol Policy) of Estonia

2025· article· en· W4407718912 on OpenAlexaff
Jürgen Rehm, Rainer Reile, Daniela Correia, Maria Neufeld, Huan Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug and Alcohol Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismWorld Health Organization
KeywordsPer capitaAlcohol consumptionAlcoholDemographyAction planConsumption (sociology)Environmental healthMedicineChemistryEconomicsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Estonia is a Baltic country with high adult alcohol per capita (APC) consumption. Since 2013, its alcohol control policy has been guided by the Green Paper on Alcohol Policy (GP), which is the equivalent of a non-binding national alcohol action plan. This contribution attempts to evaluate the overall impact of the GP on APC. METHODS: For the overall evaluation, APC was quantitatively compared for three periods: pre-GP (2000-2012), the core period of the GP (2013-2019) and the COVID-19 phase (2020-2022), using Analysis of Variance. RESULTS: APC decreased on average by 0.25 L of pure alcohol per year in the 7 years defined as the core period of the GP, whereas it increased in the other periods between 2001 and 2022 (period 2001-2012: +0.47 L; 2020-2022: +0.27 L). These differences were statistically significant (F [1, 18] = 5.22, p = 0.035). Moreover, there was no overall trend of decreasing APC during the core period of the GP in neighbouring countries (Latvia, Lithuania and Poland). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the various measures of the national alcohol policy was associated with a marked decrease in APC.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug and Alcohol ReviewSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207