Limit your time, gamble responsibly: setting a time limit (via pop-up message) on an electronic gaming machine reduces time on device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current study, we assessed whether undergraduate electronic gaming machine (EGM) gamblers would be more apt to set a time limit and spend less time gambling when asked to consider setting an explicit time limit prior to their gambling session. To this end, participants (N = 43) were randomly assigned to a time limit pop-up condition or control condition, both of which involved gambling on an EGM in a virtual reality (VR) casino. In the time limit pop-up condition, participants were asked (via pop-up message) to consider setting a time limit on play and entering that limit in an available text box prior to commencing play. In the no time limit pop-up condition, participants engaged in play immediately upon accessing the EGM in the VR casino (i.e. they were not exposed to a time limit pop-up message). As predicted, participants who were explicitly asked to consider setting a time limit on their EGM play were significantly more likely to do so and spent less time gambling than those who were not given such instructions. The results provide preliminary support for the contention that setting a time limit on EGM play is an effective responsible gambling strategy.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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 teacher head, 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".