ATTRIBUTIONS FOR CHANGE AMONG YOUNG ADULT BINGE DRINKERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Problem drinking has been shown to increase through adolescence, peak from ages 18-22, and decrease thereafter (Jackson & Sartor, 2016).Research on natural recovery suggests that reasons for reduction may be associated with factors such as social capital, marital status, parenthood, employment, and religious and academic involvement (Vik, Cellucci & Ivers, 2003;Dawson, Grant, Stinson & Chou, 2006;Misch, 2007;Lee & Sher, 2018).Methods: The current study analyzed the 8-month follow up data of 444 participants from Project BETA, an ongoing study aimed at longitudinally examining trajectories of alcohol misuse in emerging adults (ages 21.5-24.99 at enrollment) over the course of 3 years.Participants were 57.3% female, 46.4% White, and 42.3% Black.They reported the change in their drinking level over the past month and the extent to which a variety of factors helped them to change their drinking.Furthermore, change in self-reported drinking was assessed in relation to the specific factors participants had selected.Results: Regarding drinking level, 15.7% reported an increase, 40.4% reported no change and 43.8% reported a decrease.The most prevalent factors endorsed for decreased drinking levels were change in employment situation (55.9%), change in diet to eat healthier foods (49.7%), limiting access to money (47.7%), change in financial situation (46.7%), and change in social group (44.6%).Chi square analyses were conducted for gender, race, alterations in drinking level and factors associated with the change.Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the change in average drinks per week from baseline to 8-months for White and Black participants in association with the specific factors they had selected.Discussion: Further research is needed to investigate how drinking behavior can be influenced if participants are given accurate feedback on their level of drinking and the efficacy of factors associated with changes in that target behavior.Keywords: Binge drinking, young adult, natural recovery, factors for changes in drinking level, differences between genders and ethnicity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".