Is there something peculiar about Finnish views on alcohol addiction? – A cross-cultural comparison between four northern populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical studies have continued to display that Finns get heavily intoxicated more often than other Nordic people. This study asks whether Finnish views on alcohol problems and alcohol addiction differ from those of some other northern populations. This issue is studied by comparing survey results from Finland, Canada, Sweden and St. Petersburg, Russia. The data comprised 3 703 adults and it was analysed with standard descriptive methods and logistic regression analysis. Finnish general population respondents seemed to be at least as concerned about the risk of alcohol dependence as people in the other comparison countries. They also placed higher priority on alcohol problems among other societal problems than the respondents from the comparison countries. In issues of responsibility they were similar to Swedish respondents thus reflecting the common attitudes in Nordic welfare states. Their higher belief in the chances of recovery without treatment seems to reflect the traditional image of Finns as tough and self-sufficient people who can manage their problems on their own without external interference. The logistic regression analysis shows that the country effect still remains although the other sociodemographic variables were taken into account. In addition to this also some other background factors, particularly gender, age and education had some effect on the views. The combination of self-change optimism on the one hand and the general worry about alcohol problems on the other hand suggest that the cultural ambivalence towards alcohol consumption has not been fully resolved. This ambivalence could also be seen to contribute to the tradition of heavy binge drinking in Finland.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".