Academic and personal problems among Australian university students who drink at hazardous levels: web‐based survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUE ADDRESSED: Australian university students consume large amounts of alcohol. There is little published information about personal and academic problems associated with this behaviour. We sought to estimate the prevalence, and identify variables associated with, alcohol-related problems among undergraduate hazardous drinkers. METHODS: The control group members (942 undergraduates, 53.3% male, mean age 19.4 years) of an internet-based intervention trial, who scored ≥8 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, completed two validated questionnaires about their experience of alcohol-related problems in the preceding 4 weeks. Regression models were used to identify associations between individual characteristics and alcohol-related problems. RESULTS: One-quarter of participants had missed a class (25.6%) and/or had been unable to concentrate in class (25.7%), and 45% reported that their drinking had impacted negatively on their learning or grades. The most frequent non-academic problems were hangovers (74.8%), blackouts (44.8%), emotional outbursts (30.5%), vomiting (28.1%), arguments (20.2%) and drink-driving (23.2%). Male gender, lower age, being a smoker, being in the Faculty of Health (versus Humanities) and living in shared housing (versus with parents/guardians) were each associated with alcohol-related problems, whereas year of study had no association. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence of preventable alcohol-related problems among undergraduates drinking at hazardous levels and a need for restriction of the availability and promotion of alcohol as well as intervention for individuals at high risk. SO WHAT?: Universities have a duty of care to large populations of young people drinking at hazardous levels and should make greater efforts to address hazardous alcohol consumption.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".