MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083394274 · doi:10.1159/000303379

The Influence of Drinking Pattern, at Individual and Aggregate Levels, on Alcohol-Related Negative Consequences

2010· article· en· W2083394274 on OpenAlexaff
Monica Catalina Arias Astudillo, Sandra Kuntsche, Kathryn Graham, Gerhard Gmel

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Addiction Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsAlcoholPsychologyPopulationDemographyAssociation (psychology)Environmental healthMultilevel modelInjury preventionPoison controlMedicineBiologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To determine the extent drinking patterns (at the individual and country level) are associated with alcohol-related consequences over and above the total alcohol the person consumes. METHODS: Hierarchical linear models were estimated based on general population surveys conducted in 18 countries participating in the GENACIS project. RESULTS: In general, the positive association between drinking pattern scores and alcohol-related consequences was found at both the individual and country levels, independent of volume of drinking. In addition, a significant interaction effect indicated that the more detrimental the country's drinking pattern, the less steep the association between the volume of drinking and its consequences. CONCLUSION: Drinking patterns have an independent impact on consequences over and above the relationship between volume and consequences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations28
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Addiction ResearchSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207