Personality, Alcohol Use, and Drinking Motives
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
It is well-established that coping and enhancement drinking motives predict college student drinking and that personality traits predict drinking motives. Little is known, however, about personality and drinking patterns among individuals who drink for both enhancement and coping reasons. University students in the current study completed questionnaires assessing personality, alcohol use, and drinking motives. Past year drinkers (N=138) were categorized into one of four groups: coping, enhancement, coping + enhancement, and noninternally motivated drinkers. Drinking was lower among noninternally motivated drinkers and higher among coping motivated drinkers; coping + enhancement motivated drinkers reported drinking at levels most consistent with the coping group. Coping motivated drinkers reported higher levels of neuroticism, negative affect, and anxiety sensitivity, and lower levels of positive affect; coping + enhancement motivated drinkers were not significantly different from the other groups on personality traits. Although coping + enhancement motivated drinkers may be at risk for problem drinking, they may be difficult to identify via personality measures.
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 | 0.000 | 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