The association between gender expression, beliefs about alcohol, coping skills, and alcohol consumption in post-secondary students at two Canadian universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Unlike sex, the association between gender and high-risk drinking has been relatively understudied in post-secondary students. Gender expression may influence the use of protective coping strategies and beliefs about alcohol. Objectives This study evaluated associations between gender expression, protective coping strategies, beliefs about alcohol, and high-risk alcohol use in post-secondary students. Methods We analyzed data from a cross-sectional study of 3,446 undergraduate students at two Canadian universities in October 2017. The primary outcome was high-risk drinking during the previous month, measured by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score. We evaluated gender expression (masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated), protective coping strategies, and beliefs about alcohol using validated scales. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to test the association between gender expression and AUDIT scores. Results The most prevalent gender expression was androgynous (35.1% overall), while the undifferentiated role was the least prevalent (17.4% overall). Those who adhered to an androgynous gender role (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.90) were significantly more likely to engage in problem drinking. In addition, greater scores on the protective behavioural strategies scale were associated with reduced odds of problem drinking (OR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95, 0.97) while higher alcohol saliency scores were associated with higher odds of problem drinking (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.13). Conclusions Higher protective behavioural strategies and lower alcohol salience beliefs were associated with lower alcohol use. Androgynous gender roles were associated with high-risk alcohol use. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".