MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065297779 · doi:10.1002/jclp.21928

Knowing Where They're Going: Destination‐Specific Pregaming Behaviors in a Multiethnic Sample of College Students

2012· article· en· W2065297779 on OpenAlexafffund
Byron L. Zamboanga, Hilary G. Casner, Janine V. Olthuis, Brian Borsari, Lindsay S. Ham, Seth J. Schwartz, Melina Bersamin, Kathryne Van Tyne, Eric R. Pedersen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyContext (archaeology)DestinationsIntervention (counseling)Sample (material)Consumption (sociology)Multivariate analysisSocial psychologyClinical psychologyMedical educationPsychiatryMedicineSocial sciencePolitical scienceSociologyGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To examine how legal age status, gender, and self-reported reasons for pregaming are linked to pregaming for two common drinking contexts: a bar and a Greek party. METHOD: Participants who reported pregaming at least once a month (n = 2888 students aged 18-25 years) were recruited from 30 colleges/universities across the United States. RESULTS: Many students pregame for social reasons regardless of pregaming destination. Multivariate analyses indicated that legal age students were more likely than underage students to pregame before going to a bar, whereas the opposite was true with respect to pregaming for a Greek party. Women were more likely than men to pregame before going to a bar or a Greek party, whereas men reported higher levels of consumption while pregaming for these destinations compared with women. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings suggest areas for targeted intervention efforts and promising avenues for research on context-specific pregaming behaviors among college students.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.265
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207