What is the role of roles? Exploring the link between social roles and women’s alcohol use in low- and middle-income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grittner, U., Nemeth, Z., Kuntsche, S., Gaertner, B., & Bloomfield, K. (2015). What is the role of roles? Exploring the link between social roles and women’s alcohol use in low- and middle-income countries. The International Journal Of Alcohol And Drug Research, 4(2), 139-149. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v4i2.211Aims: This paper investigates how social roles are related to alcohol use among women in low- and middle-income countries.Methods: Cross-sectional data were used from 25-49-years-old women in 11 low- and middle-income countries from the GenACIS project. Dependent variables were current drinking and risky drinking (10+gr/day). Information on partnership, parenthood and having paid labour were used as social role measures. Multiple and multilevel regression analyses were carried out to test whether holding several roles are related to current and risky drinking.Results: Having paid work was associated with current and risky drinking across countries. Having a partner and having children were associated with a higher likelihood of abstention. With regard to country level characteristics per capita consumption was significantly related to both current drinking and risky drinking among women, while gross national income was significantly associated only with current drinking. Gender equality within the country did not have a significant association with women’s drinking. Concerning differing role combinations, working single women without children were most likely to be risky drinkers, while women who were not working and had a partner and children were the least likely.Conclusions: Paid labour was a substantial singular factor positively associated with women’s drinking. In addition, with the exception of Argentina and Kazakhstan, high per capita consumption on country level was associated with higher prevalence of risky drinking among women.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".