Prevention of Pathological Gambling: A Randomized Controlled Trial
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
Although the gambling industry is expanding rapidly throughout North America and around the world, there are only a few empirically evaluated programs aimed at the prevention of pathological gambling (PG). The purpose of this study was to measure the effectiveness of a new prevention program aimed at PG. The Stop & Think! program was designed to teach at-risk video lottery terminal (VLT) gamblers cognitive restructuring and problem-solving skills that may help to prevent the development of PG. These skills were taught through a variety of methods - including an automated educational presentation, video and text vignettes, audio training tapes, and skill rehearsal. The program was evaluated using a randomized, 2-group experimental design with a wait-list control group and pre-, post-, and follow-up measures. Results indicated that, compared with the control group, the experimental group was less at risk for developing a gambling problem after the program. The experimental group endorsed fewer gambling-related cognitive distortions, engaged in less VLT gambling, and had lower scores on a measure of PG. The results of this study provide the basis for the implementation of the Stop & Think! program in the province of Prince Edward Island, Canada, and perhaps other jurisdictions too.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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