Cognitive style and drinking to cope: A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Having a negative cognitive style may lead someone to feel hopeless about his or her situation and be more likely to engage in coping-motivated drinking. We, therefore, aimed to investigate the association between cognitive style and drinking to cope. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: The former Avon Health Authority in South West England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1681 participants of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed cognitive style questions at age 17 and a subset of drinking to cope questions at age 24. We used linear regression to test the association between cognitive style and drinking to cope, controlling for confounders. Alcohol consumption and dependence scales were included in a secondary analysis. FINDINGS: A 20-point increase (that was the standard deviation of the exposure variable) in cognitive style score at age 17 was associated with an increase of 0.24 in drinking to cope scores at age 24 after adjustment for confounding variables (95% CI) = 0.08-0.41, P = 0.003). We found no evidence of an association between cognitive style and alcohol consumption (coefficient = 0.03, 95% CI = -0.08-0.14, P = 0.591) before or after adjustment. There was evidence for an association with alcohol dependence, but this was not present after adjusting for confounders (coefficient = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.04-0.05, P = 0.769). CONCLUSIONS: In young adults in England, there appears to be a positive association between negative cognitive style and subsequent drinking to cope.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".