MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018099973 · doi:10.1080/07448481.2010.497523

The Utility of a Gender-Specific Definition of Binge Drinking on the AUDIT

2011· article· en· W2018099973 on OpenAlexaff
Janine V. Olthuis, Byron L. Zamboanga, Lindsay S. Ham, Kathryne Van Tyne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American College Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismAmerican Psychological Association
KeywordsBinge drinkingAuditPsychologyEnvironmental healthClinical psychologySocial psychologyPoison controlPsychiatrySuicide preventionMedicineBusinessAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Although binge drinking is commonly defined as the consumption of at least 5 drinks in 1 sitting for men and 4 for women, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) defines binge drinking as the consumption of 6 or more drinks in 1 sitting for both men and women. This study examined the effect of using gender-specific binge drinking definitions on overall AUDIT scores. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 331 college men and 1224 college women. METHODS: Participants completed a self-report questionnaire, which included the AUDIT. RESULTS: Findings showed that defining binge drinking as 4 or more drinks for women, rather than 6 or more, does impact their AUDIT scores and could affect the percentage of women classified as hazardous users. Among men, AUDIT scores were unaffected by the use of a gender-specific definition of binge drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the AUDIT might be underidentifying hazardous users among college women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American College HealthSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207