A comparison of university student and community gamblers: Motivations, impulsivity, and gambling cognitions
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
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The present study tested whether the associations among motivational, cognitive, and personality correlates of problem gambling severity differed across university student gamblers (n = 123) and gamblers in the general adult community (n = 113). METHODS: The participants completed a survey that included standardized measures of gambling motivation, gambling related cognitions, and impulsivity. The survey also asked participants to report the forms of gambling in which they engaged to test whether gambling involvement (number of different forms of gambling) was related to problem gambling severity. After completing the survey, participants played roulette online to examine whether betting patterns adhered to the gambler's fallacy. RESULTS: Gambling involvement was significantly related to problem gambling severity for the community sample but not for the student sample. A logistic regression analysis that tested the involvement, motivation, impulsivity and cognitive correlates showed that money motivation and gambling related cognitions were the only significant independent predictors of gambling severity. Adherence to the gambler's fallacy was stronger for students than for the community sample, and was associated with gambling related cognitions. DISCUSSION: The motivational, impulsivity and cognitive, and correlates of problem gambling function similarly in university student gamblers and in gamblers from the general adult community. Interventions for both groups should focus on the financial and cognitive supports of problem 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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