Drinking and Alcohol‐Related Harm Among New Zealand University Students: Findings From a National Web‐Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alcohol-related harm is pervasive among college students in the United States of America and Canada, where a third to half of undergraduates binge drink at least fortnightly. There have been no national studies outside North America. We estimated the prevalence of binge drinking, related harms, and individual risk factors among undergraduates in New Zealand. METHODS: A web survey was completed by 2,548 undergraduates (63% response) at 5 of New Zealand's 8 universities. Drinking patterns and alcohol-related problems in the preceding 4 weeks were measured. Drinking diaries for the preceding 7 days were completed. Multivariate analyses were used to identify individual risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 81% of both women and men drank in the previous 4 weeks, 37% reported 1 or more binge episodes in the last week, 14% of women and 15% of men reported 2+ binge episodes in the last week, and 68% scored in the hazardous range (4+) on the AUDIT consumption subscale. A mean of 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.4, 2.3) distinct alcohol-related risk behaviors or harmful consequences were reported, e.g., 33% had a blackout, 6% had unprotected sex, and 5% said they were physically aggressive toward someone, in the preceding 4 weeks. Drink-driving or being the passenger of a drink-driver in the last 4 weeks was reported by 9% of women and 11% of men. Risk factors for frequent binge drinking included: lower age, earlier age of drinking onset, monthly or more frequent binge drinking in high school, and living in a residential hall or a shared house (relative to living with parents). These correlates were similar to those identified in U.S. and Canadian studies. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies are needed to reduce the availability and promotion of alcohol on and around university campuses in New Zealand. Given the high prevalence of binge drinking in high school and its strong association with later binge drinking, strategies aimed at youth drinking are also a priority. In universities, high-risk drinkers should be identified and offered intervention early in their undergraduate careers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".