Changes in self-reported alcohol consumption at high and low consumption in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic: A test of the polarization hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated public health measures had an impact on alcohol use. Based on the literature of past crises (health, economic, etc.), it was hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic led to a polarization of drinking–that is, heavy drinkers increased their drinking, while light to moderate drinkers decreased their drinking and/or temporarily abstained. The aim of the current study was to test the respective hypothesis. Methods Data from the Reducing Alcohol Related Harm Standard European Alcohol Survey for Lithuania were obtained for 2015 and 2020. Average daily consumption (in grams per day) was decomposed into deciles for each year, and compared pre-COVID to onset-of-COVID pandemic across the highest, second highest, and lowest deciles. A comparison of population-levels of mental health was conducted between pre-COVID and the onset-of-COVID. Results The findings indicated that overall, there was higher consumption in 2015, M 2015 = 11.49 (SD = 8.23) vs. M 2020 = 10.71 (SD = 12.12), p < .00001. However the opposite was found in the highest decile M 2015 = 29.26 (SD = 5.44) vs. M 2020 = 39.23 (SD = 20.58), p = .0003. This reversal pattern was not observed in the second highest nor the lowest decile. There was a lower proportion of respondents indicating “bad” mental health pre- vs.post-COVID (3.4% vs. 6.5%). Conclusion Although COVID was associated with nationwide declines in alcohol consumption, this was not the case for all segments of the population. In Lithuania, it appears that there was an increase in consumption among the heaviest drinkers, supporting the polarization hypothesis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".