MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083307405 · doi:10.1177/1745691611409243

The Four-Loko Effect

2011· review· en· W2083307405 on OpenAlexafffund
Shepard Siegel

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Psychological Science · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institutes of Natural SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCaffeineContext (archaeology)DrugPsychologyAlcoholMedicinePharmacologyPsychiatryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There have been recent reports of mass hospitalizations for alcohol intoxication following consumption of fruit-flavored, caffeinated, alcoholic drinks-especially concerning one brand in particular: Four Loko. Caffeine was quickly determined to be the culprit. In accordance with a directive by the Food and Drug Administration, caffeine was removed from Four Loko and similar beverages. However, the evidence that caffeine played a prominent role in widespread displays of intoxication is far from clear. Rather, it is likely that Four Loko-type drinks are especially effective as intoxicants because they provide alcohol in an unusual context. It has been known for many years that drug tolerance partially results from an association between drug-paired stimuli and the drug effect. When these stimuli are altered, the drug-experienced individual does not display the expected tolerant response to the drug-rather, an enhanced (i.e., nontolerant) response is seen. Four Loko and similar beverages may be especially effective intoxicants because they provide a very novel flavor context for alcohol. A recent announcement by the manufacturer of Four Loko suggests (either by design or happenstance) appreciation of the contribution of alcohol-associated cues to alcohol tolerance.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.321 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Psychological ScienceSame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207