MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189532447 · doi:10.1093/alcalc/agab058

Corrigendum to: Ashamed and Alone—Risk Factors for Alcohol Craving Among Depressed Emerging Adults

2021· erratum· en· W3189532447 on OpenAlexaff
Elena Bilevicius, Courtney Clark, Edward Johnson, Matthew T. Keough

Bibliographic record

VenueAlcohol and Alcoholism · 2021
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCravingPsychologyAlcoholClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineAddictionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the originally published version of this manuscript, there were errors in lines 13 and 14 of Table 1. Line 13 should read ``Social condition'' and the mean value should be 3.13. For reference, the corrected Table 1 follows. These details have been corrected only in this corrigendum to preserve the published version of record. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations Note. M, means; SD, standard deviation. Min - Max, minimum – maximum; Post-shame and post-guilt refer to the ratings of emotions after engaging in the shame induction task. Post-alcohol craving refers to craving after the cue-exposure. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations Note. M, means; SD, standard deviation. Min - Max, minimum – maximum; Post-shame and post-guilt refer to the ratings of emotions after engaging in the shame induction task. Post-alcohol craving refers to craving after the cue-exposure. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. Additionally, the results under the Hypothesis Testing section on Pages 3 and 4 have been modified to the appropriate decimal placements. For reference, the corrected paragraphs follow. Figure 1 presents the results from our primary moderated mediation model. We found that depression was a positive predictor of self-reported post-task shame. As hypothesized, we also found support that the effect of post-task shame on post-cue alcohol craving depended on social context condition. Specifically, there was a supported indirect effect of depression on alcohol craving through shame, but only when conditioned on the solitary condition (b = 0.0170, 95% CI [.0036, .0351]) and not the social condition (b = −0.0015, 95% CI [ −.0166, .0157]). Overall, these results suggest that increases in shame may help explain why depressed emerging adults crave alcohol when alone (versus when in the presence of others). We ran an opposing model with guilt as mediator (see Figure 2). In this model, depression was a positive predictor of self-reported post-task guilt. However, we did not find support for an overall association between post-task guilt and post-cue alcohol craving and this association was not moderated by social context condition (solitary condition [b = 0.0076, 95% CI { −.0035, .0213}]; social condition [b = −0.0038, 95% CI { −.0155, .0083}]). This suggests that shame (and not guilt) is a central emotional mechanism underlying depression-related solitary drinking.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.024

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.297
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAlcohol and AlcoholismSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207