Physical and Psychomotor Functioning of Females the Morning After Consuming Low to Moderate Quantities of Beer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Individuals in society typically consume alcohol in "standard" units (e.g., bottles/cans of beer, glasses of wine, shots of distilled spirits) over a reasonable period of time whereas in many hangover studies, participants consume a single large dose of alcohol relative to their body weight in a short period of time. The purpose of this study was to examine how consuming low to moderate "standard" quantities of alcohol over an evening affected subjective hangover ratings, physical, physiological, and psychomotor functioning of adult females the next morning. METHOD: Twelve females consumed zero, two, four, or six bottles of beer (341 ml; 5% weight by volume) in a within-subjects design. Blood alcohol concentration, resting heart rate, resting blood pressure, and grip strength were measured prior to consumption, 1 hour after consumption, and the following morning (9 hours after consumption). In the morning, participants rated the presence of eight hangover symptoms, completed a four-choice reaction time test, and performed tests of submaximal and maximal endurance on a treadmill; blood lactate, blood glucose, and perceived exertion were recorded during submaximal and maximal exercise. RESULTS: Heart rate, blood pressure, grip strength, blood lactate, blood glucose, and reaction time did not significantly change the next morning as a function of alcohol dose. Participants made more choice reaction errors after consuming six than zero bottles of beer. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that consuming moderate quantities of beer affects decision making but not physical and physiological performance in adult females the next morning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".