Childhood Maltreatment, Parental Alcoholism, and Beliefs About Alcohol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated whether individuals' beliefs about the cognitive, behavioral, and affective outcomes associated with alcohol consumption (alcohol outcome expectancies; AOEs) varied as a function of family history of alcoholism (FH — versus FH+) and child abuse experiences (low versus high). Three hundred and thirty-three adults (212 women) undergoing residential treatment for drug and/or alcohol abuse completed a battery of self-report questionnaires that assessed their pre-treatment alcohol consumption patterns, maternal and paternal problem drinking, AOEs, and various forms of child abuse (i.e., emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, as well as witnessing parental violence). Four discrete groups were formed that varied according to family history of alcoholism and childhood abuse. Family history of alcoholism was consistently associated with higher levels of childhood abuse, with women being over-represented in the high abuse categories. While no significant gender by group status interactions were found, women, in comparison to men, expected greater sociability, sexuality, and cognitive-behavioral impairment. In comparison to individuals raised in non-alcoholic homes characterized by low levels of child abuse, participants from alcoholic homes who experienced high levels of abuse were more likely to expect negative AOEs (i.e., cognitive-behavioral impairment, risk/aggression, and self-perception) and outcomes associated with feelings of power and courage. Among those who were raised in non-alcoholic families, individuals who experienced high levels of child abuse were also more likely to expect alcohol-related aggression. The present findings suggest that, among treatment-seeking adults, CO As are a heterogeneous group that differ in terms of their child abuse histories and also the specific AOEs they hold.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".