MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993778131 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2012.27.4

Morals, medicine, metaphors, and the history of the disease model of problem gambling

2012· article· en· W1993778131 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Peter Ferentzy, Nigel E. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAddictionDiseasePerspective (graphical)PsychologyTRACE (psycholinguistics)Stigma (botany)Alcoholics AnonymousEtiologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyMedicinePathologyComputer sciencePhilosophyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 200 years, society has come to accept the idea that addictions such as alcoholism and pathological gambling (PG) are a type of disease that is chronic, progressive, and somewhat mysterious in terms of etiology. This conception has been most strongly associated with organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Gamblers Anonymous. The chronic disease model alleviated stigma and encouraged many to seek help, but has been challenged by some experts. Confusing the issue is that the public health model, often presented as the main alternative to the disease model, is rooted in epidemiology and clearly a disease model itself. In this paper, we trace the history of ideas about PG as a disease and examine some of the assumptions and metaphors that underlie these models. In the final section, we examine what aspects of addiction in general, and PG in particular, are either revealed or hidden by these models.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.067
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.286
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gambling IssuesSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207