Consumption plans for the rest of the night among Australian nightlife patrons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curtis, A., Coomber, K., Droste, N., Hyder, S., Mayshak, R., Lam, T., Gilmore, W., Chikritzhs, T., & Miller, P. (2017). Consumption plans for the rest of the night among Australian nightlife patrons. The International Journal Of Alcohol And Drug Research, 6(1), 19-25. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v6i1.243Aims: This study investigates associations between blood alcohol content (BAC), gender, location, time of night, and intention to consume more alcohol, energy drinks, and illicit drugs following a street intercept interview.Design: Interviews were conducted from December 2011 to July 2012.Setting: Interviews were conducted in nightlife areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Wollongong, and Geelong, between 8 p.m. to 5 a.m.Participants: Data from 4,203 participants are utilized in the current paper.Measures: Participants were asked demographic questions, as well as questions about their intentions for the rest of the night (further alcohol, drug, and energy drink use), and completed a breathalyzer test.Findings: Over 70% of the nightlife patrons intended to consume more alcohol, and this was more likely for males, regional patrons, and those with a BAC of over 0.08 g/100 ml. Overall, intention to use drugs was consistent across BAC, location, and time of night, though males were significantly more likely than females to intend to consume drugs.Conclusions: Given the risky behaviors of the most intoxicated group out drinking late at night, interventions that target latenight drinking, high levels of intoxication, and high-risk drinkers are indicated.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".