Illicit drug use and male barroom aggression among members of the Australian construction industry: Associations with personality and masculinity factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Illicit drug use has been found to increase the risks of male barroom aggression (MBA). Personality traits such as dispositional aggressiveness have been associated with illicit substance use and aggressive behaviour, along with social normative masculinity factors. The present study assessed the relationships between illicit drug use, key personality (trait aggression, impulsivity, narcissism) and masculinity (conformity to masculine norms, male honour) variables with physical MBA perpetration and victimisation among male Australian construction workers. METHODS: = 9.44) completed interviews at their place of work or training. RESULTS: Participants reported high rates of both physical MBA perpetration (21%; n = 100) and victimisation (31.1%; n = 148) as well as any illicit drug use (33.61%; n = 160). Logistic regressions revealed the use of amphetamine-type stimulants (methamphetamine, ecstasy) was associated with violence perpetration, even after accounting for high-intensity drinking (HID) which was the strongest predictor of MBA involvement. Trait variables (Trait Physical aggressiveness, narcissism) and the masculine norm CMNI Violence were also risk factors for MBA perpetration while CMNI Playboy was protective against MBA. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The use of amphetamine-type stimulants is a risk-factor for MBA perpetration, as are key personality traits such as aggressiveness and narcissism. Most aspects of masculinity, including male honour, were either unrelated to or protective against involvement in physical violence in bars, clubs or pubs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".