MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7106805776 · doi:10.14288/cjur.v8i1.196785

Assessing the Relationship Between Childhood Victimization and Excessive Binge Drinking in Adulthood

2022· article· en· W7106805776 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinge drinkingSexual abusePoison controlIntervention (counseling)Injury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionPhysical abuseAssociation (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between childhood victimization and adulthood binge drinking. Although this association is well established in the literature (e.g., Werner et al., 2016), we know little about differential effects associated with several abuse types. We used the Statistics Canada General Social Survey, Cycle 28, 2014 (GSS- Cycle 10) which included a nationally representative Canadian sample (N = 20,892). Childhood victimization included physical abuse, sexual abuse, as well as witnessing inter-personal violence. Binge drinking was defined as having had five or more drinks on the same occasion. The multivariate regression analysis found that child victimization is a robust risk factor for binge drinking in adulthood controlling for age and gender. In particular, physical and sexual violence in childhood significantly predicted higher levels of alcohol abuse in adulthood. Findings provide insight into intervention mechanisms specifically aimed at reducing both childhood abuse and risky alcohol consumption.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Collections→Same topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→