For all these reasons, I do...drink: a multilevel analysis of contextual reasons for drinking among Canadian undergraduates.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Student drinking is largely related to the setting of the drinking occasion as well as to individual psychosocial characteristics. This article assesses the effect of the reasons for drinking on situational alcohol use above and beyond other environmental and individual factors. METHOD: The data were drawn from the Canadian Campus Survey, a national mail survey conducted in 1998 with a sample of 8,864 students in 18 universities. Each student provided information on up to five drinking occasions, resulting in 25,347 drinking occasions among 6,598 drinkers. At the individual level, this study focused on the university life experience. At the situational level, information about alcohol intake was recorded relative to why, when, where and with whom drinking occurred and the reasons for drinking. RESULTS: Our results show that the reasons for drinking explain 8.3% of the variance in individual alcohol intake per occasion at the individual level and 8.1% at the drinking occasion level. CONCLUSIONS: Reasons for drinking and the drinking setting together influence consumption. Moreover, reasons are context specific, because students drink for different reasons in different contexts. Thus, contextual motivational models may be more effective in helping one understand the various pathways to alcohol use and misuse.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".