MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107264954 · doi:10.1037/0893-164x.19.1.94

Heart Rate Increase to Alcohol Administration and Video Lottery Terminal (VLT) Play Among Regular VLT Players.

2005· article· en· W2107264954 on OpenAlexaff
Sherry H. Stewart, Pamela Collins, James Blackburn, Mike Ellery, Raymond M. Klein

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Addictive Behaviors · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rateAlcoholPsychologyComorbidityAnesthesiaCardiologyInternal medicineMedicinePsychiatryBlood pressureChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examined heart rate responses to video lottery terminal (VLT) play and alcohol intake. Forty-four VLT players were randomized to an alcohol (mean blood alcohol concentration=0.06%) or a control beverage condition. Heart rate was recorded at pre- and postdrinking baseline and during VLT play. Alcohol participants displayed elevated heart rates relative to controls at postdrinking and VLT play. Controls displayed elevated heart rates during VLT play relative to both pre- and postdrinking baselines, whereas alcohol participants displayed elevations at post- relative to predrinking and at VLT play relative to postdrinking. Heart rate increases from predrinking to VLT play were greater among alcohol participants relative to controls. Results provide novel information that the combination of VLT play and alcohol further intensifies heart rate increase relative to either alone. Implications for pathological gambling and alcohol use disorder comorbidity are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology of Addictive BehaviorsSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207