MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026996594 · doi:10.1037/0893-164x.15.4.333

Binge drinking among underage college students: A test of a restraint-based conceptualization of risk for alcohol abuse.

2001· article· en· W2026996594 on OpenAlexaff
R. Lorraine Collins, James R. Koutsky, Elizabeth T. Morsheimer, Michael G. MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Addictive Behaviors · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsBinge drinkingAlcoholPsychologyAlcohol abuseTemptationPoison controlInjury preventionClinical psychologyEnvironmental healthSocial psychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors tested a restraint-based model that binge drinking is a function of being tempted to drink alcohol while also being concerned about avoiding excessive alcohol intake. Underage (18- to 20-year-olds, 204 men and 225 women) college student drinkers completed measures that assessed the attraction to alcohol (e.g., temptation to drink, alcohol expectancies), concern about regulating alcohol intake (e.g., restriction of alcohol intake, reasons for limiting drinking), and alcohol-related outcomes (binge drinking, alcohol problems). In separate hierarchical multiple regressions, the attraction to alcohol accounted for significant amounts of additional variance in each of the alcohol outcomes. Concern about regulating alcohol intake accounted for additional variance, above that explained by attraction to alcohol. The results suggest that interventions for underage binge drinking should include training in the skills for regulating alcohol intake.

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)0.000
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations48
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology of Addictive BehaviorsSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207