Problem-solving skills in male and female problem gamblers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study was designed to compare the self-reported problem-solving skills of male and female gamblers. In total, 148 females and 112 males (mean age = 43.6 years, SD = 12.0), responding to an advertisement for people concerned about their gambling, completed the Problem Solving Inventory (Heppner, 1988). The PSI consists of three factors related to self-perception of problem-solving: confidence, personal control and approach-avoidance style. Gamblers were categorized into three subgroups according to their DSM-IV scores: Asymptomatic, Problem, and Pathological. Results from a series of analyses of co-variance (co-varying for the confounding effects of current emotional distress) revealed that gender had no significant effect, but problem severity on appraisal of problem-solving confidence and sense of personal control had a significant effect. Pathological gamblers were less confident and felt less in control than the other subgroups while engaging in problem-solving activities. Problem gamblers tended to have more negative appraisals of control than Asymptomatic gamblers. Problem-solving skills were also a significant predictor of DSM-IV scores for pathological gambling (i.e., negative appraisals were associated with higher DSM-IV scores). The results suggest that problem-solving skills are deficient in pathological gamblers and problem gamblers, but are not related to gender.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".