Caffeine and arousal: a biobehavioral theory of physiological, behavioral, and emotional effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 50% of both high school and college students report experience with illicit drugs, and 27% of all Americans abuse drugs at some time in their lives. 1 In fact, 20 million people in the United States reported heavily using and abusing drugs in 1994. 2 Some of these drugs, including cocaine and the amphetamines, are stimulants that increase arousal and provide the user with a psychological “high.” But cocaine, for example, was used by only 3.6% of the U.S. populace in 1994, 3 as compared with the 80% of U.S. adults who drink coffee or tea daily. The average adult in the U.S. and Canada consumes 4 mg/kg/day, 4 and many exceed 15 mg/kg. 5,6 Similarly, Asians and some Europeans consume large amounts of caffeine in tea. Coffee contains a larger amount of caffeine, averaging 85 mg for ground roasted and 60 mg for instant in 5 oz, while leaf tea (5 oz) averages 30 mg and instant tea averages 20. 7
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".