Understanding the Antecedents of Korean High School Students’ Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy: Parental Influence, Peer Influence, and Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the factors that influence Korean adolescents' drinking refusal self-efficacy, which is known to be associated with alcohol use and drinking intentions. Specifically, this study considered parental monitoring, parent-child communication satisfaction, peer influence, and prior alcohol use as possible antecedents of Korean high school students' drinking refusal self-efficacy. High school students (n = 538) in South Korea responded to the current study. The data revealed that parent-child communication satisfaction facilitated parental monitoring, and these factors indirectly predicted adolescents' drinking behavior through peer influence. We also found that prior drinking, parental monitoring, and peer influence were directly associated with drinking refusal self-efficacy, and the self-efficacy, in turn, was associated with drinking intentions. These results not only suggest that drinking refusal self-efficacy are related to drinking behavior and intentions, but they also provide a theoretical explanation for how parental and peer influences are associated with adolescents' drinking refusal self-efficacy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".