MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090469534 · doi:10.1080/13676261.2013.793792

Social status versus coping as motivation for alcohol use

2013· article· en· W2090469534 on OpenAlexaff
Owen Gallupe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Youth Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAlcoholNormativePopularityCoping (psychology)Developmental psychologySocial supportAnxietyClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study was to examine whether there are two distinct groups of adolescent alcohol users: (1) low-level adolescent alcohol users who may be motivated by social status and (2) high-level users who are expected to be more concerned with coping. Social status is measured by the sociometric variables popularity and centrality. Variables that indicate a need to cope are depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem. Using waves I and II of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), support for these different etiological processes are found across high and lower level alcohol users. Among more normative (low level) alcohol users, social status plays a stronger role in predicting alcohol use than for more problematic (high level) alcohol users. For the high-level group, alcohol use appears to be a way to cope with depression. However, lower levels of self-esteem are only related to increased alcohol use among adolescents in the low-level group.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Youth StudiesSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207