Fluid skills: drinking games and alcohol consumption among Australian university students
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The objective of this study was to assess participation in drinking games among Australian university students; to determine the range of games played, their context and participant motivations; and to analyse the impact of games on alcohol consumption and its adverse consequences. We used a cross-sectional survey incorporating structured interviews and a self-administered questionnaire with students between 18 and 25 years of age at the University of Western Australia. This was a qualitative assessment of drinking game typology and contexts and participant motivation. Quantitative outcomes were rate and frequency of participation in drinking games; amount and rate of alcohol consumption during games; incidence of adverse outcomes following participation. Twenty-seven interview responses and 256 questionnaire responses were analysed for qualitative and quantitative outcomes, respectively. The qualitative analysis enabled categorisation of drinking games by skill and competitive nature, with varying influence on hazardous drinking. Common reported motivations for play included boredom, social pressure and social unease. The associated heavy drinking and possible hazards were well recognised but did not affect the decision to play. In the quantitative arm, most drinkers (74%) reported having participated in a drinking game. Game players reported playing an average of four drinking games in the previous 6 months. An average of six standard drinks was consumed during the most recent game. Pressure to participate from others was reported by 60% of game participants, while 50% reported that they had placed pressure on others to participate. Half (51%) reported an adverse outcome following participation. Loss of consciousness due to drinking was experienced or witnessed by 89% of game players, of whom 63% reported that the person was put to bed, while 54% reported that the person was watched. Participation in drinking games was common, and plays an important social role in this group. Drinking games were associated commonly with binge drinking and adverse outcomes. Future harm minimisation strategies targeting this group should address the particular risks of these games.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».