Initiation and continuation of best friends and adolescents’ alcohol consumption: Do self-esteem and self-control function as moderators?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this three-wave longitudinal survey, we investigated bi-directional longitudinal associations between best friends and adolescents’ alcohol consumption. Additionally, since the relation between best friends and adolescents’ drinking may be stronger if adolescents have not consumed alcohol yet, we examined this relation not only with regard to continuation but also with regard to the initiation of adolescent drinking. We also hypothesized that low levels of self-esteem and self-control in youths would be related to a higher susceptibility to the impact of their best friends’ drinking. Data were used from 433 adolescents and their best friends. Results of SEM analyses did not provide evidence for bi-directional associations between best friends and adolescents’ alcohol use over time. Nevertheless, the results of additional growth curve analyses indicated that adolescents and best friends’ drinking does seem to develop in a similar fashion over time. Adolescents’ self-esteem, self-control, and gender did not moderate longitudinal associations between best friends and adolescents’ drinking. The discussion focuses on methodological and theoretical explanations for the absence of significant longitudinal relations between best friends and adolescents’ drinking.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".