MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016647803 · doi:10.1177/0013916505283419

The Physical and Psychological Measurement of Gambling Environments

2006· article· en· W2016647803 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Behavior · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPleasureLegibilitySet (abstract data type)PsychologyContrast (vision)Environmental psychologyFocus (optics)Design elements and principlesSocial psychologyApplied psychologyAdvertisingComputer sciencePsychotherapistArtificial intelligenceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examined the influence of the physical design of gambling venues on emotion. Two competing casino designs were identified. According to Kranes's playground model, casinos should include environmental elements designed to induce pleasure, legibility, and restoration. In contrast, Friedman proposed a set of design principles focusing on the machines as the dominant feature of the décor. Three exemplars of each design were identified. Measures of emotional reactions to the casinos were collected from 22 people who had gambled in all six casinos. Kranes-type casinos yielded significantly higher ratings than did Friedman-type casinos on pleasure and restoration (relief from environmental stress). Future research should focus on design variations that can be built into a Friedman-type setting to enhance restoration.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.229 · 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