Pilot study of an Internet-based personalized feedback intervention for problem gamblers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".