MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099399244

Leeds, Grenville & Lanark District Health Unit MEDIA RELEASE

2014· article· en· W7099399244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBusiness, Innovation, and Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlcohol consumptionUnit (ring theory)Consumption (sociology)Unit of alcoholSet (abstract data type)Occupational safety and healthSuicide prevention
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You always have a choice when it comes to alcohol – Rethink Your Drinking! For the first time ever, Canada has one national set of low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines. These guidelines, intended for Canadians of legal drinking age who choose to drink alcohol, aim to provide consistent information across the country to help Canadians moderate their alcohol consumption and make informed choices. The new guidelines outline standard drinks sizes, limits for men and women, discuss when the limit is zero, and provide healthy alternatives and tips to decrease health risks. When it comes to alcohol, drinking is a personal choice, and the majority of people drink responsibly. We're not asking you to stop drinking … instead we want you to Rethink Your Drinking, and gradually reduce the amount of alcohol you consume as part of a healthy lifestyle. If you choose to drink, these guidelines can help you decide when, where, why and how. Remember during the holidays that when it comes to alcohol…choice matters. The Low-Risk Alcohol Drinking Guidelines can help you plan ahead when you are drinking by providing safe drinking tips and times when zero is the limit. “Choice matters ” is an important topic because of the way alcohol impairs our judgment and reaction time.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.007

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.172 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBusiness, Innovation, and EconomyFrench-language works237,207