Trusting problem gamblers: Reliability and validity of self-reported gambling behavior.
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
The retest reliability and validity of self-reported gambling behavior were assessed in 2 samples of problem gamblers. Days gambled and money spent gambling over a 6-month timeframe were reliable over a 2- to 3-week retest period using the timeline follow-back interview procedure (N=35; intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs] ranged from .61 to .98). Gamblers did, however, report significantly more gambling at the 2nd interview. Agreement with collaterals was fair to good overall (ICCs ranged from.46 to.65) with no clear pattern of either over- or underreporting by gamblers. Spouses did not show greater agreement with gamblers compared with nonspouses, and greater agreement was not found for collaterals who were more versus less confident in their reports. The results are generally supportive of the use of self-reported gambling in studies of problem gamblers, assessed face to face and by telephone, although suggestions for further research are provided.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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