ALCOHOL INTOXICATION REDUCES IMPULSIVITY IN THE DELAY-DISCOUNTING PARADIGM
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To examine the moderating effects of alcohol myopia on cognitive impulsivity in humans using the delay-discounting paradigm. METHODS: Seventy-six male undergraduate students were randomly assigned to sober, placebo or alcohol conditions. In the delay-discounting task, participants made a series of hypothetical choices between a small, immediate reward and a large, delayed reward. To test the predictions of alcohol myopia theory, participants completed a standard version of the task or one containing cues which impelled the impulsive choice (i.e. preference for the small, immediate reward). Participants also completed a personality measure of impulsivity and the go/no-go task, which assesses motor impulsivity. RESULTS: Intoxicated participants tended to discount delayed rewards at lower rates than sober participants, and blood alcohol level was inversely correlated with delay discounting. The impelling cues did not moderate the effects of alcohol on delay discounting. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol intoxication does not always increase cognitive impulsivity and may lead to more cautious decision-making under certain conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it