MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981455194 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-13199

Personality and Daily Alcohol Use Across University: Interactions with Academically Intense Events Predicting Alcohol Use Problems

2018· dissertation· en· W2981455194 on OpenAlexaff
Sean Alexander

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtraversion and introversionNeuroticismAlcoholPersonalityPsychologyAnticipation (artificial intelligence)StressorBig Five personality traitsConscientiousnessClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extraversion and neuroticism are associated with alcohol use problems in university.Students higher in extraversion have heavier alcohol use, while neuroticism is not consistently associated with alcohol use.This study examined the hypothesis that students higher in neuroticism may drink in anticipation of stressors, namely tests and assignments, using archival data taken from the University Life Study, a longitudinal study assessing alcohol use across four years of university, with daily diary bursts each semester.Students higher in extraversion had heavier alcohol use and had increased alcohol use problems.Neuroticism was not associated with drinking outcomes, drinking before a test or assignment, or alcohol problems.Students lower in extraversion, or higher in introversion, who consumed relatively more alcohol before tests and assignments had more alcohol use problems at the end of university.Drinking alcohol in anticipation of stressors can increase alcohol dependence risk for students lower in extraversion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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