Do Individual and Situational Factors Explain the Link Between Predrinking and Heavier Alcohol Consumption? An Event-Level Study of Types of Beverage Consumed and Social Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Predrinking (drinking in private settings before going to licensed premises) has been shown to be positively associated with amount of alcohol consumed. The present study assesses whether this association is explained by general drinking patterns or situational factors, including drinking duration, beverage type and drinking companions. METHODS: In a sample of 183 young adults from French-speaking Switzerland, data on alcohol consumption, whereabouts and drinking companions were collected using questionnaires sent to participants' cell phones at five time points from 5 p.m. to midnight every Thursday, Friday and Saturday over five consecutive weeks. Means and proportion tests and multilevel models were conducted based on 6650 assessments recorded on 1441 evenings. RESULTS: Over the study period, predrinkers drank more frequently than did non-predrinkers and, among males, predrinkers drank more heavily. Predrinking was related to increased drinking duration and thus total consumption in the evenings. Larger groups of people were reported for predrinking compared with off-premise only drinking situations. Among women, the consumption of straight spirits (i.e. not mixed with soft drinks) while predrinking was associated with higher total evening alcohol consumption. Among men, drinking with exclusively male friends or female friends while predrinking was associated with higher consumption. CONCLUSION: Heavier drinking on predrinking evenings mainly results from longer drinking duration, with individual and situational factors playing a smaller role. Prevention efforts on reducing the time that young adults spend drinking and harm reduction measures such as restriction of access to on-premise establishments once intoxicated are recommended.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".