Aggression‐related alcohol expectancies and barroom aggression among construction tradespeople
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Few studies have investigated the relationship of barroom aggression with both general and barroom-specific alcohol expectancies. The present study investigated these associations in a rarely studied and high-risk population: construction tradespeople. DESIGN AND METHODS: Male construction tradespeople (n = 211) aged 18-35 years (M = 21.91, SD = 4.08 years) participated in a face-to-face questionnaire assessing general and barroom-specific alcohol expectancies and perpetration of physical and verbal barroom aggression as well as control variables, age, alcohol consumption and trait aggression. RESULTS: Sequential logistic regression analyses revealed that general alcohol-aggression expectancies of courage or dominance were not predictive of either verbal or physical barroom aggression after controlling for age, alcohol consumption and trait aggression. However, barroom-specific alcohol expectancies were associated with both verbal and physical barroom aggression, with positive associations found for expected hyper-emotionality and protective effects for expected cognitive impairment. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In a population where rates of risky drinking and barroom aggression are high, specific expectations about the effects of drinking in bars may influence subsequent aggressive behaviour in bars. [Zinkiewicz L, Smith G, Burn M, Litherland S, Wells S, Graham K, Miller P. Aggression-related alcohol expectancies and barroom aggression among construction tradespeople. Drug Alcohol Rev 2016;35:549-556].
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) | 0.001 | 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".