MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967590941 · doi:10.1177/0013916509341791

Casino Décor Effects on Gambling Emotions and Intentions

2009· article· en· W1967590941 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPleasurePsychologySocial psychologyAffect (linguistics)MacroSample (material)CognitionAdvertisingCommunicationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sample of 484 gamblers (241 males) viewed simulations of casino settings varying in their macro design ( playground vs. gaming) and their micro décor elements (lighting, human crowding, color, machine clustering, and layout symmetry). The décor element levels were manipulated to reflect information load (e.g., flashing lights afford more information than do static lights). The participants provided three measures for each simulation: at-risk gambling intention, pleasure, and restoration. Overall, the playground design and females yielded higher scores on each measure than did the gaming design and males. Also, the relationship between pleasure and at-risk gambling intention was fully mediated by restoration. The effects of information load on the three dependent measures were complex as they depended on the macro design and the gender of the participant. These results are discussed within a framework where affect and cognition mediate atmospheric effects on gambling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.284 · 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