Personality, drinking motives and protective behavioural strategies among undergraduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a high level of both heavy episodic drinking and related problems among Canadian \nundergraduates. Four personality traits and five motives for alcohol consumption place students \nat risk for experiencing increased levels of alcohol-related problems. Protective behavioural \nstrategies represent a novel, harm reduction approach to ameliorating the negative consequences \nthat individuals experience as a result of their drinking behaviour. In order to explore the \nrelationships between personality traits, motives for drinking, protective behavioural strategies \nand alcohol-related problems, a 2-wave longitudinal study was conducted to examine two \nhypotheses: 1) Does PBS use at wave 1 moderate the relationship between personality traits at \nwave 1 and alcohol outcome at wave 2?, and 2) Does PBS use at wave 1 moderate the \nrelationship between motives for alcohol use at wave 1 and alcohol outcome at wave 2? Results \nindicated that PBS do not moderate the relationship between any personality traits and problems, \nbut do moderate the relationship between two motives for use (coping with anxiety and coping \nwith depression) and alcohol-related problems, however, relationships did not emerge as \npredicted. For those who drink to cope with anxiety or depression, increased PBS usage was \nrelated to increased alcohol-related problems, demonstrating that PBS may not provide a \nprotective effect at high levels of these drinking motives. Unique aspects of undergraduate \nlifestyle may impact the usefulness of PBS for this population, and more directive or intensive \nstrategies to reduce related harms may be required.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".