MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145194520 · doi:10.1080/1067828x.2012.747906

Alcohol Use Growth Trajectories in Young Adolescence: Pathways and Predictors

2013· article· en· W2145194520 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen R. Shamblen, Chris Ringwalt, Heddy Kovach Clark, Seán Hanley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyQuarter (Canadian coin)Sample (material)Developmental psychologyAlcoholLatent growth modelingPeer groupTrajectoryDemographyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New analytical tools have facilitated the exploration of the trajectories of alcohol use; however, there are a limited number of studies that explore early adolescence. A sample of 5,903 youths followed from sixth through eighth grade was used to (1) examine the trajectories of alcohol use and (2) determine the degree to which common correlates predicted these trajectories. Our models provided the most support for a four trajectory group solution with nearly half of the sample (49.3%) largely abstaining, more than a quarter of the sample (29.4%) experimenting and exhibiting small increases, 15.0% initiating early and exhibiting a consistent level of low use, and a small percentage (6.3%) rapidly progressing to a heavy level of drinking across the three-year period. Perceived behavioral control was the most consistent predictor of trajectory type, but peer norms and positive attitudes toward alcohol also played a role. The implications and limitations of these findings are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child & Adolescent Substance AbuseSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207