Parental socioeconomic status and binge drinking in adolescents: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Binge drinking is a phenomenon of excessive alcohol use seen in many countries. The objectives of this systematic review are a) to investigate the effect of parental socioeconomic status on binge drinking in adolescents, b) to compare how binge drinking and parental socioeconomic status was measured across studies, and c) to compare the differences between developed and developing countries. METHOD: We searched PsycINFO and Ovid Medline databases for articles up to January 2016. Parental socioeconomic status is defined as household income, parental educational level, and parental occupational status. Binge drinking is defined as at least 4/5 alcohol drinks on a single occasion. RESULTS: Four hundred and fourteen articles were granted from the databases search with an additional 28 articles were hand-searched through bibliographies. After abstracts and full-text were reviewed, a total of 20 studies have met inclusion criteria for this systematic review. In developed countries, included studies were done in the United States, United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, France, Netherlands, Hong Kong, and Canada. In developing countries, included studies were done in China and Brazil. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies find no relationship between parental socioeconomic status and binge drinking in adolescents. However, studies that were done in developing countries yielded a weak positive association when no such association was found in developed countries. The variation on measuring binge drinking and parental socioeconomic status is discussed. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: These findings may inform healthcare systems in prevention and intervention for binge drinking among adolescents (Am J Addict 2016;25:610-619).
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it