More Canadian students drink but American students drink more: comparing college alcohol use in two countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare alcohol use among US and Canadian college students. DESIGN: Results of the 1999 College Alcohol Study and the 1998 Canadian Campus Survey are compared. SETTING: One hundred and nineteen nationally representative US 4-year colleges and universities in 40 states and 16 nationally representative Canadian 4-year universities. PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected students under 25 years (12 344 US and 6729 Canadian). MEASUREMENTS: Self-reports of alcohol use and heavy alcohol use. FINDINGS: The prevalence of life-time and past year alcohol use is significantly higher among Canadian students than US students (92% versus 86%, 87% versus 81%). The prevalence of heavy alcohol use (typically consuming five or more drinks in a row for males/four or more for females) among past-year and past-week drinkers is significantly higher among US students than Canadian students (41% versus 35%, 54% versus 42%). In both countries older [corrected] students and students living at home with their parents are less likely to be heavy drinkers; students who report first drunkenness before the age of 16 are more likely to be heavy drinkers in college. CONCLUSION: Programs aimed at students' heavy alcohol use should target freshman at entry or earlier. Since students living with their parents are less likely to be heavy drinkers, parents may play a potentially important role in prevention efforts. The patterns of drinking in both countries may be influenced by the legal minimum drinking age. However, the relationship is complex and must be viewed in the context of other variables such as chronological age.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".