MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076074821 · doi:10.1080/08897077.2011.598404

International Differences in Alcohol Use According to Sexual Orientation

2011· article· en· W2076074821 on OpenAlexafffund
Kim Bloomfield, Matthias Wicki, Sharon C. Wilsnack, Tonda L. Hughes, Gerhard Gmel

Bibliographic record

VenueSubstance Abuse · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSexual orientationSexual minorityPopulationPsychologyHomosexualityHeterosexualityDemographySubstance useMedicineEnvironmental healthClinical psychologySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most research on sexual orientation and alcohol use in the United States has found higher rates of alcohol use and abuse among gay men and lesbians. Studies from other countries have found smaller or no differences between sexual minority and heterosexual women and men. The present study used general population survey data from 14 countries to examine high-volume and risky single-occasion drinking by sexual orientation. Data from 248 gay men and lesbians and 3720 heterosexuals were analyzed in a case-control design. In several countries partnered or recently partnered gay men and lesbians had no greater risk of heavy drinking or engaging in heavy drinking than heterosexual controls. Only lesbians in North America showed higher risk for both indicators. Future general population health research should include larger samples of gays and lesbians and use more comprehensive measures of sexual orientation for investigating the prevalence of health risk factors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSubstance AbuseSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207