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 OpenAlex
Owen Gallupe

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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