MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Behavioral and psychological involvement of online video gamers : Building blocks or building walls to socialization?

2012· article· en· W1976634266 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Benjamin Hickerson, Andrew J. Mowen

Bibliographic record

VenueLoisir et Société / Society and Leisure · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocializationPsychologyAggressionVideo gameSocial psychologySocial supportOnline videoSocial isolationSocial mediaApplied psychologyMultimediaComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Video gaming has often been associated with negative outcomes such as aggression and social isolation, particularly for those who spend significant amounts of time playing. However, advances in video game technology have enabled online, multi-player experiences which may facilitate social relationships. Recent literature suggests that meanings ascribed to video gaming may be more important in determining social outcomes than gaming behaviors alone. This study examined the relationship of both behavioral and psychological involvement in video gaming to perceived friend-based social support among a sample of multi-player, first-person shooter gamers. Results indicated that behavioral involvement (e.g., time spent playing, dollars spent) was unrelated to perceived social support. Enduring (i.e., psychological) involvement with video games had varied relationships with the measure of social support. Gamers who perceived video gaming to be a forum for social bonding were more likely to perceive higher levels of social support, while gamers who appeared to centralize their lifestyle around gaming were less likely to report positive social support levels.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLoisir et Société / Society and LeisureSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207