Attachment, motivations, and alcohol: Testing a dual-path model of high-risk drinking and adverse consequences in transitional clinical and student samples.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette etude avait pour objectif de reproduire et d'elargir un modele motivationnel de la consommation d'alcool a risque et de ses consequences (Cooper, Frone, Russell & Mudar, 1995; Read, Wood, Kahler, Maddock & Palfai, 2003), mettant a l'epreuve la notion que l'attachement est un antecedent commun aux cheminements social et affectif menant a la tendance a la consommation excessive d'alcool, definie selon deux dimensions, la consommation d'alcool a risque et ses consequences. Des etudiants en premiere annee d'universite (N = 696) et des clients inscrits pour une premiere fois a un centre de traitement de la toxicomanie (N = 213) ont rempli des questionnaires visant a etablir leur consommation d'alcool, les consequences de leur consommation, les raisons la motivant et le style d'attachement. Les resultats ont mis en relief l'importance du cheminement affectif en ce qui a trait aux modes de consommation et a la vulnerabilite aux problemes. Les resultats ont aussi permis de constater que les sujets ayant le plus haut niveau d'anxiete d'attachement etaient plus vulnerables aux consequences nefastes attribuables a la consommation d'alcool. Ces resultats ont souligne l'importance du style d'attachement a titre de facteur de risque de consommation d'alcool a risque et de ses consequences.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it