The effect of knowledge of mathematics on gambling behaviours and erroneous perceptions
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
This study evaluates the effect of knowledge of mathematics as a protective factor against excessive gambling behaviours and erroneous beliefs. Two groups with different levels of knowledge of mathematics were compared as to their perceptions and behaviours before and during a gambling session. A total of 60 participants (30 men, 30 women) completed a questionnaire evaluating how they perceive the notion of chance and participated in two experimental tasks: the production of a random sequence of heads/tails, and a gambling session on a video lottery terminal. The results show that participants with knowledge of mathematics held more erroneous perceptions of gambling before the experiment whereas both groups showed an equal number of erroneous perceptions and behaviours during gambling. The importance of knowledge of mathematics as a protective factor against excessive gambling is questionable. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed with regard to the prevention of excessive gambling.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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