Binge drinking in undergraduates: relationships with sex, drinking behaviors, impulsivity, and the perceived effects of alcohol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binge drinking on university campuses is associated with social and health-related problems. To determine the factors that may predict this behavior, we collected information on alcohol use, alcohol expectations, and impulsivity from 428 undergraduate students attending a Canadian university. The subjective effects of a binge drinking dose of alcohol were assessed in a subset of participants. In the larger sample, 72% of students reported drinking at or above binge drinking thresholds on a regular basis. Men reported alcohol consumption per drinking occasion, which was consistent with other studies, but the frequency of drinking occasions among women was higher than in earlier studies, suggesting that consumption in women may be increasing. Compared with men, women reported different expectations of alcohol, specifically related to sociability and sexuality. Self-reported impulsivity scores were related, albeit weakly, to drinking behaviors and to expectations in both the sexes. Finally, intoxicated binge drinkers reported feeling less intoxicated, liking the effects more, and wanting more alcohol than did non-binge drinkers receiving an equivalent dose of alcohol. These results have implications for sex-specific prevention strategies for binge drinking on university campuses.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".