Social and contextual factors associated with drinking before, during and after watching Australian Football League games: A pilot ecological momentary assessment study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to: (i) determine the feasibility of using ecological momentary assessment to collect data from Australian Football League (AFL) fans; (ii) explore pre-game, during-game and post-game consumption patterns of AFL fans; and (iii) explore the social and setting-related factors associated with risky single occasion drinking (5+ drinks) among AFL fans. METHODS: Thirty-four participants completed up to 10 ecological momentary assessment surveys before, during and after 63 AFL games (n = 437 completed surveys). Surveys collected data about their drinking, and their social and environmental milieu (e.g., location, company). Binary logistic regression analyses clustered by participant identified which game-day characteristics were associated with higher odds of risky single occasion drinking. Significant differences between pre-game, during-game and post-game drinking on social and environmental factors were explored using pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Risky single occasion drinking was more likely when games began in the early-afternoon (1-3 pm) than late-afternoon (3-6 pm), when participants watched the game at a stadium or pub compared to home, and when participants watched the game with friends compared to family. Pre-drinking was more likely before night games and post-drinking was more likely after day games. Drinking during the game was heavier when watching the game at a pub and when watching with a combined group of friends and family. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that social and contextual factors matter in the way alcohol is consumed while watching AFL games. These findings require further investigation in larger samples.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".