MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103760360 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2011.26.2

Pilot study of an Internet-based personalized feedback intervention for problem gamblers

2011· article· en· W2103760360 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
John Cunningham, David C. Hodgins, Tony Toneatto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHelplineThe InternetPsychologyWeb sitePersonalizationIntervention (counseling)Applied psychologyWorld Wide WebComputer scienceMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This pilot study reports on the initial usage of an online personalized feedback screener for problem gamblers. The Check Your Gambling screener (CYG; www.CheckYourGambling.net) is an online version of a paper and pencil screener that had shown some promise in an initial evaluation to promote short-term reductions in gambling behaviour. The online CYG screener was linked to two existing Web pages for gambling in Ontario, Canada-the Ontario Problem Gambling Helpline (OPGH) Web page and ProblemGambling.ca. While more participants used the ProblemGambling.ca (n = 730) version than the OPGH version (n = 591), the OPGH version appeared to be more targeted, as almost all of the participants using this Web site were Canadian (and the personalized feedback of the current version of the CYG is generated using Canadian norms). More work is needed to establish whether the online CYG screener can motivate reductions in gambling among participants or motivate treatment-seeking in those requiring assistance in addressing problematic gambling behviour.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.415
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.049 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gambling IssuesSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207