"Double trouble": The lived experience of problem and pathological gambling in later life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this phenomenological qualitative study was to explore the lived experience of older adults who engage in problem or pathological gambling. Method and sample: Older adults who gambled were recruited and were administered two gambling screens to ensure that they met the criteria for problem or pathological gambling. Eleven problem-pathological gamblers were identified and contributed their narratives via in-depth interviews about their experiences of problem or pathological gambling. Results: Several themes arising from the interviews were similar to patterns identified with younger gamblers, yet distinct patterns emerged. Some older gamblers gamble as an opportunity to break away and escape from traditional roles and go to extreme measures to continue their gambling while hiding it from significant others. Conclusion: Despite research suggesting few seniors encounter problems with gambling, this qualitative study suggests that gambling can have devastating consequences. Older adults may have lessened ability and time to recover from these consequences or from hitting bottom. Key words: gambling, narrative, older adults, problem-pathological gambling, phenomenology, aged
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".