#BingeDrinking—Using Social Media to Understand College Binge Drinking: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hazardous drinking among college students persists, despite ongoing university alcohol education and alcohol intervention programs. College students often post comments or pictures of drinking episodes on social media platforms. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand one university's student attitudes toward alcohol use by examining student posts about drinking on social media platforms and to identify opportunities to reduce alcohol-related harm and inform novel alcohol interventions. METHODS: We analyzed social media posts from 7 social media platforms using qualitative inductive coding based on grounded theory to identify the contexts of student drinking and the attitudes and behaviors of students and peers during drinking episodes. We reviewed publicly available social media posts that referenced alcohol, collaborating with undergraduate students to select their most used platforms and develop locally relevant search terms; all posts in our data set were generated by students associated with a specific university. From the codes, we derived themes about student culture regarding alcohol use. RESULTS: In total, 1151 social media posts were included in this study. These included 809 Twitter tweets, 113 Instagram posts, 100 Greekrank posts, 64 Reddit posts, 34 College Confidential posts, 23 Facebook posts, and 8 YouTube posts. Posts included both implicit and explicit portrayals of alcohol use. Across all types of posts reviewed, positive drinking attitudes were most common, followed by negative and then neutral attitudes, but valence varied by platform. Posts that portrayed drinking positively received positive peer feedback and indicate that drinking is viewed by students as an essential and positive part of university student culture. CONCLUSIONS: Social media provide a real-time picture of students' behavior during their own and others' heavy drinking. Posts portray heavy drinking as a normal part of student culture, reinforced by peers' positive feedback on posts. Interventions for college drinking should help students manage alcohol intake in real time, provide safety information during alcohol use episodes, and raise student awareness of web-based privacy concerns and reputation management. Additional interventions for students, alumni, and parents are needed to address positive attitudes about and traditions of 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".