Young adults' accounts of buying rounds of alcoholic drinks for friends: Implications for harm reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Riazi, S., & MacLean, S. (2016). Young adults' accounts of buying rounds of alcoholic drinks for friends: Implications for harm reduction. The International Journal Of Alcohol And Drug Research, 5(3), 125-129. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v5i3.229Aims: Buying or shouting rounds (purchasing alcoholic drinks for oneself and others at the same time) at on-premise licensed venues, such as nightclubs and bars, is a widespread Australian cultural practice. Our paper aims to provide detailed information on young adults’ attitudes and practices concerning round buying.Methods: Thematic analysis of research interviews involving 60 young adults living in Melbourne was conducted using NVivo 10, yielding three key themes.Findings: (1) Contexts where round buying occurred: young adults considered group size and culture, as well as bar activity, when determining whether they should round buy with their friends. In busy venues, round buying conveniently reduced the number of trips to and time waiting at the bar. Round buying was less likely to occur in groups larger than 4-5 people, as beyond this participants found it difficult to control the reciprocity of round buying, cost, and consumption of alcohol. (2) Sociability: while round buying did not occur within the friendship groups of all participants, it was seen by many as an important way of demonstrating connections with friends. (3) Consumption: overwhelmingly, participants believed that round buying increases their overall alcohol intake through implicit and explicit pressures to consume more.Conclusions: Policies that limit round buying may offer a means to reduce alcohol-related harm. In addition, education that challenges round buying rules and expectations may help alleviate pressure on young adults to consume heavily.
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 | 0.001 | 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".