MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071409011 · doi:10.1037/cjbs2006008

Personality characteristics and risk-taking tendencies among adolescent gamblers.

2006· article· en· W2071409011 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Rina Gupta, Jeffrey L. Derevensky, Stephen Ellenbogen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyValidation testDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsArtTest validity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Huit cent dix-sept etudiants provenant d'ecoles secondaires de la region de Montreal ont repondu a une mesure diagnostique de jeu etablie a partir du DSM-IV-J, au High School Personality Questionnaire (questionnaire d'evaluation de la personnalite des etudiants de l'ecole secondaire) (HSPQ), a l'echelle de recherche de sensation de Zuckerman (SSS), ainsi qu'a un questionnaire sur le jeu qui permet d'etablir la participation au jeu et les comportements lies au jeu. Huit des quatorze facteurs de la personnalite evalues par le HSPQ, ainsi que trois des quatre sous-echelles du SSS differaient selon le niveau de gravite des problemes lies au jeu. Une analyse discriminante a permis de determiner que des niveaux eleves de desinhibition, de susceptibilite a l'ennui, de jovialite et d'excitabilite, ainsi que des niveaux faibles de conformite et d'autodiscipline etaient fortement lies a la fonction qui predit le mieux le niveau de gravite de la dependance au jeu. Les resultats indiquent que les styles de personnalite et la prise de risque varient qualitativement chez les adolescents selon la gravite de leur comportement de jeu et que certains types de personnes sont plus susceptibles que d'autres de presenter des problemes de jeu.

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)0.002
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations81
Published2006
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportementSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207