Personal Luck Usage Scale (PLUS): psychometric validation of a measure of gambling-related belief in luck as a personal possession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Luck is by definition a random event. However, many people believe luck to be something it is not – an internal, personal quality. An obstacle for understanding personal luck and its sequelae among gamblers has been the lack of a psychometrically sound measure. The current paper reports the development of the Personal Luck Usage Scale (PLUS). In Studies 1 and 2 (Ns = 347 and 361, respectively), a one-dimensional, eight-item scale emerged and was subsequently confirmed among university-aged gamblers. Importantly, the PLUS was distinguishable from a general belief in luck (Study 2). In Study 3 (N = 60), a behavioural consequence of belief in personal luck was assessed among a community sample of gamblers. Specifically, PLUS scores were positively associated with the average amount of money spent in a gambling session. The implications of a belief in gambling-related personal luck for the progression and maintenance of problem gambling 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".