Associations between Gender Expression, Protective Coping Strategies, Alcohol Saliency, and High-Risk Alcohol Use in Post-Secondary Students at Two Canadian Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study, conducted in October 2017 at two Canadian universities, aimed to explore the relationships between gender expression, protective coping strategies, alcohol saliency, and high-risk alcohol use. Methods: Validated scales were employed to assess these variables using survey data. Multivariate analyses were conducted to investigate the associations between these factors and high-risk drinking. Results: The study revealed significant associations between high-risk drinking and androgynous gender roles (OR=1.58, 95% CI: 1.19-2.10) as well as among self-reported males (OR=2.21; 95% CI: 1.77-2.75). Additionally, protective behavioral strategies were inversely related to high-risk drinking (OR=0.95; 95% CI: 0.94-0.96), while higher alcohol saliency exhibited a positive correlation with high-risk drinking (OR=1.12; 95% CI: 1.11-1.14). Conclusions: These findings underscore the importance of considering gender, alcohol saliency beliefs, and protective behavioral strategies in the development and refinement of interventions aimed at reducing high-risk alcohol use on Canadian campuses.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".