MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134033383 · doi:10.1177/009145090403100208

Characteristics of Former Heavy Drinkers: Results from a Natural History of Drinking General Population Survey

2004· article· en· W2134033383 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Cunningham, J. Blomqvist, Anja Koski‐Jännes, Joanne Cordingley, Russell C. Callaghan

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Drug Problems · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom digit dialingHeavy drinkingNatural historyPsychologyPopulationEnvironmental healthDemographyQualitative researchMedicineClinical psychologyInjury preventionPoison controlInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the factors associated with reduction from heavy drinking among three groups: current abstinent, moderate, and reduced drinkers. A random-digit-dialing telephone survey was conducted of 3,006 respondents in Ontario, Canada. Of these, 470 respondents (46% female) met criteria as former heavy drinkers (99 abstinent; 237 moderate; 134 reduced but not moderate drinkers). Quantitative and qualitative questions were used to explore current and past drinking, use of treatment, and reasons for change. Qualitative items were tape-recorded and transcribed. Respondents in the abstinent group had more severe problems prior to resolution as compared with those in the moderate group. Reduced drinkers displayed a prior alcohol severity at a level between these two other groups. The most common reasons for change in all groups were new responsibilities, maturation, and health concerns. This study serves as a useful adjunct to other natural-history research, exploring the reasons for change in a representative sample of former heavy drinkers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Drug ProblemsSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207