Is alcopop consumption in Switzerland associated with riskier drinking patterns and more alcohol‐related problems?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine (a) whether consumers of alcopops compared to consumers of other alcoholic beverages but not alcopops have riskier drinking patterns and more alcohol-related consequences (e.g. truancy, scuffles, problems with parents) and (b) whether the amount of alcopops consumed is associated independently with risky drinking patterns and alcohol-related consequences over and above those associated with the amount of other alcoholic beverages consumed. SAMPLE: As part of the ESPAD international study, a cross-sectional national representative sample of 5,444 drinkers aged 13-16 years was interviewed by means of an anonymous, self-report questionnaire administered in a classroom setting. RESULTS: Earlier initiation of consumption, more frequent risky single occasion drinking (RSOD), and a higher likelihood of negative consequences for consumers than for non-consumers of alcopops were due mainly to higher overall consumption. Other alcoholic beverages had similar effects, and whether the same amount of alcohol was consumed as alcopops or as any conventional alcoholic beverage made no difference. CONCLUSIONS: Alcopops in Switzerland do not seem to be linked to specific riskier drinking patterns or consequences per se. Like all alcoholic beverages, they add to the problems caused by drinking and seem to be consumed in addition to conventional alcoholic beverages without replacing them. As the alcohol industry will continue to launch new beverages, prevention targeting alcohol consumption in general might be more effective than focusing on new beverages only.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".