Energy drink co‐administration is associated with increased reported alcohol ingestion
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
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: While energy drinks (EDs) and alcohol have been reported to be frequently co-administered, little is known about the effect of this co-administration on alcohol drinking patterns. The purpose of the present research was to characterise patterns of ED and alcohol co-administration. DESIGN AND METHODS: Seventy-two ED users were recruited from the Halifax university community. Participants provided information about their lifetime ED and other substance use, in addition to detailing instances of their ED and alcohol use during the previous week using a timeline follow-back interview. RESULTS: Seventy-six per cent of participants reported ever deliberately mixing alcohol with EDs and 19% reported doing so during the previous week. Relative to alcohol drinking sessions in which EDs were not used, participants reported drinking significantly more alcohol when it was co-administered with EDs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol and ED co-administration is relatively common among ED users and seems to be associated with increased alcohol ingestion. It is recommended that this matter receive more clinical and research attention.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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