Person- and Context-Level Moderators of State Alcohol Policy Environment Effects on Binge Drinking Among U.S. 4-Year College Students, 2008–2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binge drinking remains a serious issue among college students. While prior works showed more restrictive state alcohol policy environments are associated with less binge drinking in college students, the association may depend on individual, contextual, and institutional factors specific to this population. Data were from repeated cross-sectional surveys among 902,486 college students ages 18-24 years from 591 four-year institutions in 47 states during 2008-2019. Time-varying, state-level Alcohol Policy Scale (APS) scores and fourteen moderators were examined in relation to students' past 2-week binge drinking (5+ drinks in a sitting). Associations between higher APS scores (more restrictive state policies) and lower odds of binge drinking were moderated by several factors representing contextual features of college. For example, higher APS scores were associated with lower odds of binge drinking among students living on campus or with their parents and by those unaffiliated with the Greek system, but not among students in off-campus or Greek housing or members of the Greek system. Negative associations between APS and binge drinking were stronger for dating and cohabitating than single students. Additionally, APS scores were significantly more negatively associated with binge drinking for Asian than for non-Asian students. At the institution level, APS scores were negatively associated with students' binge drinking at institutions in medium to large, but not small population centers. The identification of factors that moderate effects of alcohol policy environment on college binge drinking informs potential prevention approaches that are more culturally tailored and targeted to subgroups of interest.
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".