MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076419632 · doi:10.1093/alcalc/agp002

An Experimental Study on Imitation of Alcohol Consumption in Same-Sex Dyads

2009· article· en· W2076419632 on OpenAlexaff
Helle Larsen, Rutger C. M. E. Engels, Isabela Granic, Geertjan Overbeek

Bibliographic record

VenueAlcohol and Alcoholism · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersRadboud Universiteit
KeywordsAlcoholCravingPsychologyAlcohol consumptionImitationTasteEnvironmental healthDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyAddictionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: In order to study the role of imitation in relation to drinking, alcohol consumption among two peers was examined with experiments in a naturalistic drinking setting. METHOD: In a bar lab, 135 young adults (52% women) were exposed to either a non-drinking, a light-drinking or a heavy-drinking same-sex model (i.e. a confederate) in a 30-min time-out session. Instead of using a taste task (Quigley and Collins, 1999. The modeling of alcohol consumption: a meta-analytic review. J Stud Alcohol 60:90-8) in which participants were obliged to consume alcohol, in the current study, a design was used in which participants were allowed to drink alcohol but could also choose non-alcoholic beverages. RESULTS: Craving for alcohol was included as a covariate in ANCOVAs. Results showed that the participants consumed substantially more alcohol when exposed to heavy-drinking models compared to light- and non-drinking models. Craving levels were positively related to alcohol consumption during the experiment. CONCLUSION: Both men and women imitated same-sex peers' drinking behavior in an ad lib naturalistic bar setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations103
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlcohol and AlcoholismSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207