Maintaining and losing control during internet gambling: A qualitative study of gamblers’ experiences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an in-depth exploration of the psychosocial factors and processes related to maintaining and losing control during internet gambling. It explores features of internet gambling leading to loss of control, control strategies used by internet gamblers, and the perceived utility of online responsible gambling measures. Interviews with 25 moderate risk and problem internet gamblers yielded rich first-person accounts analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. The most frequently identified aspects of internet gambling leading to impaired control were use of digital money, access to credit, lack of scrutiny and ready accessibility. Participants used a range of self-limiting strategies with variable success. Most considered that more comprehensive responsible gambling measures are required of internet gambling operators. The findings provide insights into the cognitive and behavioural processes that moderate problem gambling and are highly relevant in developing effective prevention and treatment programs for this new interactive mode of gambling.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it