The association between alcohol abstinence, drinking or binge drinking and drug use: is alcohol abstinence that safe?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the association between alcohol abstinence and illicit drug use during early adulthood, and compares abstinence to moderate drinking and binge drinking, regrouped in different frequencies. Design/methodology/approach A total of 5,968 young male adults who completed the questionnaires were selected for the analyses. Alcohol abstinent participants were compared to moderate drinkers (who did not experience binge drinking during the previous 12 months), and casual, monthly, weekly and daily binge drinkers in terms of prevalence of drug use during early adulthood. Findings Alcohol abstinence was associated with higher risks of drug use than moderate drinking (odds ratio (OR)>3) for most of drugs, especially last-stage drugs: crystal meth, solvents, spice and heroin (6.50<OR<13.50). Such findings encourage rethinking prevention among alcohol abstainers who were so far considered at low risk of drug use. Research limitations/implications The main limitations of the study are the fact that it is cross-sectional, gender-blind and focussing on Swiss native who are less vulnerable than migrants. Practical implications High-risk subjects should be identified among young people who do not drink in order to develop specific preventive interventions. Originality/value This study is one of the first that compare alcohol abstinence, moderate drinking and binge drinking. Separate results covering 15 different drugs are presented.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".