MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1996682166 · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02282.x

[Commentary] WHAT WE SEE DEPENDS MAINLY ON WHAT WE LOOK FOR (JOHN LUBBOCK, BRITISH ANTHROPOLOGIST, 1834–1913)

2008· letter· en· W1996682166 sur OpenAlexaff
David C. Hodgins

Notice bibliographique

RevueAddiction · 2008
Typeletter
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueGambling Behavior and Treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyEntertainmentSubstance abuseAlcohol abuseGambling disorderPsychiatryCriminologyAddictionPolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The gambling and gambling disorders field has been influenced strongly by the more extensive and more mature body of research reported in the substance use and abuse area. In fact, a number of top substance abuse researchers have shifted into gambling research as gambling disorders have become an increasing concern world-wide. Stewart and colleagues [1] are extending to gambling work that which they and others have conducted on drinking motives. The results of this instrument development study suggest that there are a number of similarities between gambling and drinking motives. Three factors were uncovered that predicted differentially gambling frequency and gambling problems, mainly consistent with the alcohol literature. With alcohol, this research line has led to practical advancements in tailoring treatments to motives [2,3], and the hope is that similar advancements will be made for gambling. Although the impact of substance abuse research on the gambling field has been mainly positive, the potential weakness is that substance abuse researchers will find only what they look for. Stewart and colleagues recognize this potential limitation when they note that there are possibly other motives unique to gambling, not measured by their instrument. I remember very clearly, at my first gambling conference in the early 1990s when I was shifting over to gambling from substance abuse, Garry Smith, a gambling research pioneer (now a close colleague) describing the ‘4 E's of gambling’—entertainment, excitement, escape and to win money (economic gain)’. The first three of these motives correspond roughly to Stewart's gambling motives. Concerning the fourth reason, however, the financial motive is specific to gambling and, in fact, is a very frequently reported reason for gambling. Garry Smith's mnemonic summarized findings from a set of ‘reasons for gambling’ questions that have been included in many of the general population gambling prevalence surveys that have been conducted around the world (e.g. [4–6]). A little investigation revealed that the origin of these questions came from Rachel Volberg and Max Abbott, who included an open-ended question about reasons for gambling in a New Zealand general population survey of gambling (R. Volberg, personal communication, 10 April 2008). Responses were coded into categories with the following results: 57% mentioned winning money as the main reason they gambled; 33% said that they gambled for fun or entertainment, took pleasure in gambling or saw it as fun or recreation; 19% said that they gambled to support worthy causes; 15% said they gambled to socialize; and 15% said they gambled for the excitement or challenge. In numerous subsequent surveys these questions have been asked in closed format, with broadly similar results over time and geography. Most recently a 2006 survey of Californians showed that of weekly gamblers, 75.0% reported entertainment to be somewhat or very important; 66.0% winning money; 48.1% excitement; and 41.3% socializing [6]. In this survey and others [5,6], however, pathological and problem gamblers were more likely to endorse the winning money motive than non-problem gamblers. The importance of money as a motivation was also revealed in some of our research when pathological gamblers described their reasons for relapsing when attempting to quit gambling—optimism about winning and the need to win money were the two most frequently reported relapse precipitants [7]. Using gambling as a strategy to win money is, of course, unrealistic given the clear house advantage in typical gambling situations. This paradox has been identified as a major erroneous cognition that is the focus of cognitive treatment for gambling problems [8]. It may be that the motive is actually the possibility of winning money versus an expectation of actually winning. Survey items such as the ‘reasons for gambling’ options are designed for use in large samples, and scales with stronger psychometric qualities are required for more detailed study with smaller clinical groups. While Stewart and colleagues provide a validated scale to measure some aspects of motives for gambling, other important aspects of this fascinating disorder are also deserving of our attention.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,152
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,070
Tête enseignante GPT0,353
Écart entre enseignants0,283 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAddictionMême sujetGambling Behavior and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207