‘I have no interest in drinking’: a cross‐national comparison of reasons why men and women abstain from alcohol use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To examine country differences in reasons for abstaining including the association of reasons with country abstaining rate and drinking pattern. PARTICIPANTS: Samples of men and women from eight countries participating in the GENACIS (Gender Alcohol and Culture: an International Study) project. METHODS: Surveys were conducted with 3338 life-time abstainers and 3105 former drinkers. Respondents selected all applicable reasons for not drinking from a provided list. Analyses included two-level hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) regression. FINDINGS: Reasons for abstaining differed significantly for life-time abstainers compared to former drinkers, by gender and age, and by country-level abstaining rate and frequency of drinking. Life-time abstainers were more likely than former drinkers to endorse 'no interest', 'religion' and 'upbringing' and more reasons overall. Gender differences, especially among former drinkers, suggested that norms restricting drinking may influence reasons that women abstain ('no interest', 'not liking taste') while drinking experiences may be more important considerations for men ('afraid of alcohol problems', 'bad effect on activities'). Younger age was associated with normative reasons ('no interest', 'taste', 'waste of money') and possibly bad experiences ('afraid of problems'). Reasons such as 'religion', 'waste of money' and 'afraid of alcohol problems' were associated with higher country-level rates of abstaining. Higher endorsement of 'drinking is bad for health' and 'taste' were associated with a country pattern of less frequent drinking while 'not liking effects' was associated with higher drinking frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Reasons for abstaining depend on type of abstainer, gender, age and country drinking norms and patterns.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".