Evaluating theories of alcohol‐related aggression using observations of young adults in bars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The objective of the present study is to evaluate 36 explanations of alcohol-related aggression that have been proposed in the research literature in terms of their relevance to naturally-occurring incidents of aggression involving alcohol. DESIGN: The study involved content analysis of descriptions of 105 incidents of aggression. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Bars frequented by young adults. MEASUREMENTS: Step-by-step descriptions of incidents of aggression reported by researcher-observers based on 93 nights of observation in bars between midnight and 3 a.m. FINDINGS: Some explanations relating to the effects of alcohol (e.g. focused on the present, reduced anxiety about sanctions or danger, heightened emotionality) and the environment (e.g. generally permissive environment, expectation by patrons that aggression will be tolerated) were found to be relevant to most incidents, while other explanations (e.g. crowding, release of pent-up anger) were directly relevant to only a few or no incidents. Incidents involving male-to-male aggression were more likely than incidents involving both males and females to be attributable to expectations, acceptance of aggression, power concerns, male honor and "macho" values. Principal components analysis identified five groupings of explanations: risk-taking effects of alcohol, cognitive impairment from alcohol, hyperemotional effects of alcohol, "macho" subculture, and permissive environment. CONCLUSIONS: The findings are consistent with a model of alcohol-related aggression that involves multiple contributing factors including alcohol effects and situational contexts. The greater relevance of certain explanations and the natural groupings of explanations point to directions for future research.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".