MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033259144 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2008.22.5

Consequences of pathological gambling on the gambler and his spouse

2008· article· en· W2033259144 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Francine Ferland, Patricia-Maude Fournier, Robert Ladouceur, Priscilla Brochu, Michael J. Bouchard, Lindy Pâquet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpousePsychologyHarmPerceptionSocial psychologyPathologicalDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The consequences of pathological gambling negatively impact many aspects of the life of both the gambler and his relatives. This exploratory study compared the gambler's perceptions of the consequences of gambling in his life and in the life of his spouse with the perceptions that his spouse had of the same consequences. Seven couples, each including a male pathological gambler, participated in the study. Members of each couple individually completed the questionnaire. The descriptive analyses showed that each member of the couple mentioned, in addition to the financial consequences, different consequences stemming from the gambling behaviour of the gambler. The analyses revealed that the spouse perceived the consequences she experienced, as well as those experienced by the gambler, as more severe than the gambler perceived them. This paper discusses how each member of a couple that includes a pathological gambler differs in their perception of harm related to 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.

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)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.471
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.015 · 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

Citations50
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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