MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2612891636 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00645

Changes in the Relative Balance of Approach and Avoidance Inclinations to Use Alcohol Following Cue Exposure Vary in Low and High Risk Drinkers

2017· article· en· W2612891636 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ross C. Hollett, Werner G. K. Stritzke, Phoebe Edgeworth, Michael Weinborn

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsCravingPsychologyAlcoholBalance (ability)TasteAlcohol consumptionCue reactivityConsumption (sociology)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyAddictionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the ambivalence model of craving, alcohol craving involves the dynamic interplay of separate approach and avoidance inclinations. Cue-elicited increases in approach inclinations are posited to be more likely to result in alcohol consumption and risky drinking behaviours only if unimpeded by restraint inclinations. Current study aims were 1) to test if changes in the net balance between approach and avoidance inclinations following alcohol cue exposure differentiate between low and high risk drinkers, and 2) if this balance is associated with alcohol consumption on a subsequent taste test. In two experiments (N = 60; N = 79), low and high risk social drinkers were exposed to alcohol cues, and pre and post approach and avoidance inclinations measured. An ad libitum alcohol consumption paradigm and a non-alcohol exposure condition were also included in Study 2. Cue-elicited craving was characterised by a predominant approach inclination only in the high risk drinkers. Conversely, approach inclinations were adaptively balanced by equally strong avoidance inclinations when cue-elicited craving was induced in low risk drinkers. For these low risk drinkers with the balanced craving profile, neither approach or avoidance inclinations predicted subsequent alcohol consumption levels during the taste test. Conversely, high risk drinkers, where the approach inclination predominated, each inclination synergistically predicted subsequent drinking levels during the taste test. In conclusion, results support the importance of assessing both approach and avoidance inclinations, and their relative balance following alcohol cue exposure. Specifically, this more comprehensive assessment reveals changes in craving profiles that are not apparent from examining changes in approach inclinations alone, and it is this shift in the net balance that distinguishes high from low risk drinkers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychology→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→