College binge drinking: a new approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The proportion of young people binge drinking continues to grow despite extensive research efforts aiming to reverse this growing trend. Binge drinking has typically been viewed as the consumption of five or more standard drinks or units in a single drinking session. Research on binge drinking is US centric and largely quantitative. This paper, using qualitative methods, aims to gain richer insights into binge drinking. Design/methodology/approach Seven focus groups involving 36 participants were conducted in Poland and Canada. Focus group data were transcribed and analysed. Findings Three distinct types of binge drinking were identified. The authors termed these initiation, indulgence and moderation. The paper details how each type of binge drinking can be distinguished through different attitudes and drinking behaviours. Research limitations/implications Any observations made in this paper are restricted by the sample used and the methodology employed, and therefore cannot be uncritically generalised. The findings should be used to further investigate the phenomena, in different contexts, with different respondents and using different methods, in order to deepen the understanding of binge drinking. Practical implications The results suggest that rather than thinking of binge drinking as one thing, binge drinking should be thought of as different types, involving different behaviours and attitudes. Originality/value To date the literature has viewed binge drinking as a single phenomenon. This study is the first to put forward the notion that binge drinking should not be defined as one thing, i.e. consuming five or more alcohol drinks in one day. The framework offered in this paper will assist future researchers to consider different types of binge drinking.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".