Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), 16.6% of adults drank at hazardous levels (AUDIT scores of 8 to 15), 1.9% were harmful or mildly dependent drinkers (AUDIT scores of 16 to 19) and 1.2% were probably dependent drinkers (AUDIT scores of 20 or more).As in previous years, men were more likely than women to drink at hazardous levels and above.Most adults drank at lower risk levels (57.5%) or did not drink at all (22.8%). Of men aged 16 to 64, between a quarter and a third drank at hazardous levels or above.Such drinking was less common in men aged 65 and older.In women, drinking at hazardous levels or above was most common in 16 to 24 year olds (25.6%).In the 25 to 64 year age-groups, between 13% and 15% drank at these levels, while rates in older women were lower. Harmful, mildly dependent, and probably dependent drinking was most common in men aged 25 to 34 (6.6%).The proportions drinking at this level were lower in older age-groups.In women, drinking at this level was most frequent in those aged 16 to 24. Levels of hazardous drinking have declined in men over the past fifteen years (36.8% in 2000 among 16 to 74 year olds; 32.4% in 2007; 27.9% in 2014), and remained stable in women. Overall, levels of harmful and dependent drinking have remained stable.However, this masks trends divergent between age groups.AUDIT scores of 16 or above have become less common in 16 to 24 year olds (6.2% in 2007, 4.2% in 2014), but more common in 55 to 64 year olds (1.4% in 2007, 2.8% in 2014). Self-diagnosis and diagnosis by professionals of alcohol or drug dependence was most frequent among people whose AUDIT scores indicated probable dependence: but even then such diagnoses were reported only by a minority.Of those with probable dependence, 42.2% reported that they had at some time experienced alcohol or drug dependence, and 34.2% reported that they had received such a diagnosis from a professional.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.331 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".