Drinking Patterns, Problems, and Motivations Among Collegiate Bisexual Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE AND PARTICIPANTS: The authors compared the drinking behaviors, motivations, and problems of collegiate bisexual women with those of heterosexual women (N = 2,788; n = 86 bisexual women). METHODS: Data came from the 2003 Student Life Survey, a random population-based survey at a large midwestern university. The authors explored the hypothesis that bisexual women would be more likely than heterosexual women to report drinking motivations related to stress and coping as a result of sexual identity stigma. RESULTS: They found that bisexual women drank significantly less than did heterosexual women. There were few differences between the 2 groups in drinking motivations and problems. Bisexual women reported a comparable number of problems related to their drinking but were significantly more likely to report contemplating suicide after drinking than were heterosexual women. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to understand the finding that despite lower levels of alcohol consumption, bisexual women reported a comparable number of drinking problems. College health educators and health care providers need to be aware of findings related to heightened suicidal risk among bisexual women.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".