Beliefs, attitudes, and male-to-male barroom aggression: Development of a theoretical predictive model
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
While evidence suggests that male-to-male barroom aggression is linked to attitudes and beliefs, there exists no theoretical model that delineates these relationships. We use theory on attitudes and behavior as well as sociocultural theories of alcohol and aggression to develop a model linking beliefs and attitudes to the likelihood of engaging in male-to-male barroom aggression. The model identifies five dimensions of attitudes and beliefs regarding alcohol-related aggression: (1) expected consequences; (2) perceived normality and acceptability by others; (3) beliefs about drinking and the role of alcohol in aggression; (4) social honor and protection of masculine identity; and (5) personal approval or disapproval of male barroom aggression. Qualitative and ethnographic research on barroom drinking and aggression is used to describe these dimensions and to hypothesize how they might influence the occurrence of male-to-male barroom aggression. This model may be useful for identifying avenues for prevention and for comparing the explanatory role of attitudes and beliefs across cultures.
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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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