A longitudinal person‐centered analysis of anxiety sensitivity risk for young adult alcohol misuse: Examining the role of injunctive norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alcohol use and problems increase during adolescence and peak in early adulthood. Tension reduction theory points to anxiety sensitivity as a risk factor for alcohol misuse, and the theory of planned behavior suggests that injunctive norms (i.e., perceived approval of risky drinking) may be central to this risk trajectory. METHODS: = 18.82, 62.2% women). RESULTS: Latent profile analyses revealed three distinct injunctive norm profiles, which proved to be identical across the three measurement points. These profiles were characterized by mixed levels of perceived approval (high typical students, neutral friends, low parents; Mixed Tolerance profile), low levels of perceived approval (low typical students, friends, parents; Low Tolerance profile), and high levels of perceived approval (high typical students and friends, neutral parents; High Tolerance profile). Student membership in these profiles was moderate to highly stable over time. A higher level of anxiety sensitivity was associated with membership in profiles characterized by high perceived approval of risky drinking. The Mixed Tolerance profile was associated with the least amount of alcohol misuse and problems (protective), the Low Tolerance profile was associated with some risk, and the High Tolerance profile was associated with the most risk. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the nature and stability of injunctive norm profiles and offer new insight into the role of injunctive norm topologies in Alcohol-Related Social Risk (AS-risk) for young adult alcohol misuse and related problems.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".