Applying the codependency concept to concerned significant others of problem gamblers: Words of caution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two competing models of understanding concerned significant others (CSOs) of people with addictions have emerged: codependency (CD) and stress-coping. In the context of CSOs of problem gamblers, some research has begun to examine the effectiveness of the stress-coping model, but no research to date has examined the utility of incorporating the CD concept into treatment planning. The purpose of this paper is to: critique the CD concept while highlighting possible differences between problem gambling and substance abuse (i.e., financial issues, the ability to hide the problem, cognitive distortions, and societal attitudes); identify important considerations when working with CSOs of problem gamblers; make recommendations for program managers regarding hiring and training practices; and recommend directions for research and in-depth program evaluations to assess what is actually occurring in existing practice.
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 | 0.065 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.044 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".