Recommendations for Post-Secondary Student Engagement in Promoting Responsible Alcohol Consumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: As a preliminary step to addressing issues relating to the consumption of alcohol at post-secondary institutions and engaging students in the health promotion process, our team conducted a campus-wide survey of the student population at three institutions in one Ontario community. The goals of our study were a) to assess trends in alcohol use among post-secondary students (as per Canada’s Low-Risk Alcohol Dinking Guidelines [LRADG]); b) to assess students’ awareness of the LRADG; and c) to identify best practice strategies from which students may benefit. Methods: All students enrolled at one of three post-secondary institutions received a request to complete an on-line survey. Results: A total of 1,829 students responded to the survey. Ninety-two percent of the students reported consuming alcohol in the past 12 months. Forty-one percent binge drank once a month or more during the past 12 months. A greater percentage of male students, students between the ages of 19 and 24 years, Caucasians, and students living in residence exceeded the LRADG limits. Fifteen percent of students had seen or heard of the LRADG in the past. The preferred means to receive information about the LRADG were ‘through the media’ (32.3%) and ‘electronically’ (31.7%). Conclusion: Our results support the need to promote the responsible consumption of alcohol in post-secondary institutions. The key to success lies in a multi-faceted approach that involves as many partners as possible, including the students themselves. The approaches discussed consider the needs of all students, particularly at-risk sub-populations, and ensure that the campus environment supports a culture of moderation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.016 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".