Home alone: Patterns and perceptions of solitary home alcohol consumption in an Australian convenience sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In contrast with extensive literature exploring sociable alcohol use, few studies focus on drinking alone at home, even though the home is the place where the majority of drinking occurs. METHODS: We draw on survey and interview data gathered in 2018/2019 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, to identify prevalence and perceptions of solitary home drinking in an Australian convenience sample of heavy and light drinkers (LD). RESULTS: A substantial minority of survey participants identified drinking home alone, with over a quarter of heavy drinkers (27%) reporting that they only drank alone in their own home (compared to 15% of LD). In interviews, solitary home drinking was frequently constructed as signifying personal inadequacy, heavy consumption and harm. However, tensions arose through solitary home drinking bringing pleasures, such as relaxation. It was regarded as more socially acceptable for men than women and lighter home drinking patterns were viewed more positively than heavy drinking. Perceptions of what constitutes solitary home drinking varied, with some suggesting it includes drinking with others present who are not themselves drinking, and others using a more limited definition of consuming alcohol while alone in a house. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: While strong social sanctions against it persist, solitary home drinking can reflect a lack of opportunity to drink with others and also be associated with more harmful regular patterns of alcohol use. Increasing recognition of home drinking provides a new imperative to better understand the complex stigmatisation that frames solitary home drinking and to explore opportunities to limit associated harms.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".