MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075860919 · doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0223

Predictive Factors of Excessive Online Poker Playing

2010· article· en· W2075860919 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoredomImpulsivityPsychologyMoodAnxietySocial psychologyNegative moodClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the widespread rise of online poker playing, there is a paucity of research examining potential predictors for excessive poker playing. The aim of this study was to build on recent research examining motives for Texas Hold'em play in students by determining whether predictors of other kinds of excessive gambling apply to Texas Hold'em. Impulsivity, negative mood states, dissociation, and boredom proneness have been linked to general problem gambling and may play a role in online poker. Participants of this study were self-selected online poker players (N = 179) who completed an online survey. Results revealed that participants played an average of 20 hours of online poker a week and approximately 9% of the sample was classified as a problem gambler according to the Canadian Problem Gambling Index. Problem gambling, in this sample, was uniquely predicted by time played, dissociation, boredom proneness, impulsivity, and negative affective states, namely depression, anxiety, and stress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.318 · 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