MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2024600034 · doi:10.1016/s0924-9338(14)77607-2

EPA-0134 – Video gaming and gambling: an exploratory study in an adolescent french population

2014· article· en· W2024600034 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucía Romo, Laurence Kern, Gayatri Kotbagi, Sophie Plantey, Francesco Boz, Adélaïde Coëffec, Nathalie Chèze, N. Lepillet, Ellen Benoit

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Psychiatry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyImpulsivityAnxietyPopulationDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyCognitionVideo gamePsychiatryDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notion of gambling fascinates the scientific community for almost thirty years to become today a major concern for health policy. It is a well-known fact that lack of control and excessive gambling can have deleterious effects on the individual. The aim of this study was to compare the use of video games and gambling in a population of 5568 adolescents and young adults in schools, colleges and universities of France. A majority of the sample was female (61.2% vs 38.8% male). We note that 43.4% of the sample is less than 18 years old. We evaluated personality dimensions (anxiety, depression, self-esteem, impulsivity), socio-cognitive variables (cognitive distorsions, life satisfaction) and habits (substance use). Our results showed that 6% of children and 3,5% of adults were found to be at risk of gambling according to the Canadian Pathological Gambling Index (CPGI). Correlations between scores on gambling and problematic video game use were 0.29 for children and 0.44 for adults (significant at p 0.05). According to regression analysis, the predictors of problematic use of video games were depression, incapacity to stop (facet of impulsivity) and the score on the CPGI. For pathological gambling, the predictors were: interpretive bias (dimension of cognitive distorsion), substance use (tobacco and cannabis), facets of impulsivity of the UPPS (incapacity to stop, positive urgency and lack of premeditation) and the total score for the problematic use of video game. These results are interesting in the adaptation of care for people with gambling problem.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Psychiatry→Same topicGambling Behavior and Treatments→French-language works237,207→