Towards a relational framework for pathological gambling (<scp>P</scp>art <scp>I</scp>): Five circuits
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationship patterns before and after pathological gambling were investigated qualitatively using eight in‐depth clinical case studies in which one partner met D iagnostic and S tatistical M anual of M ental D isorders‐ IV pathological gambling criteria. Five circuits of couple interactions are described: (i) fault‐lines; (ii) pressure points; (iii) escalation; (iv) relapse and (v) congruence. The exploration of these circuits is developed in two complementary articles. This first article delineates the first four circuits as recursive self‐perpetuating cycles of couple distress in systemic interaction with pathological gambling development and relapse. The second article delineates how a couple can be helped to extricate themselves from these recursive circuits through ‘congruence’. Implications of this relational formulation of pathological gambling for conceptualization, assessment and treatment are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it