MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404366601 · doi:10.1002/jeab.4229

Reward deprivation is associated with elevated alcohol demand in emerging adults

2024· article· en· W4404366601 on OpenAlexaffabout
James G. Murphy, Samuel F. Acuff, Avery C. Buck, Kevin W. Campbell, James MacKillop

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
KeywordsPsychologyBinge drinkingAddictionAlcoholIntervention (counseling)PsychosocialYoung adultPsychiatryClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthPoison controlInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Policies vary substantially in terms of providing sources of psychosocial enrichment. Behavioral economic models of substance use and addiction emphasize that deficits in access to substance-free sources of reward increase substance reinforcing value and risk for addiction. The current study used an alcohol demand curve approach to test the hypothesis that various indices of reward deprivation would be associated with elevated alcohol reinforcing efficacy. We examined associations between alcohol demand indices and several facets of reward deprivation in a sample of young adults (N = 1,331; ages 19-25 years) recruited from the United States and Canada who reported recent binge drinking. Additionally, we created an index of cumulative reward deprivation that integrated the various reward facets and examined its association with alcohol demand intensity and maximum expenditure on alcohol. Our findings indicate that reward deprivation is associated with elevated alcohol demand and provide support for alcohol prevention and intervention approaches that emphasize environmental enrichment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Experimental Analysis of BehaviorSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207