MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159702035 · doi:10.1177/1461444814521140

Maintaining and losing control during internet gambling: A qualitative study of gamblers’ experiences

2014· article· en· W2159702035 on OpenAlexaff
Nerilee Hing, Lorraine Cherney, Sally Gainsbury, Dan I. Lubman, Alex Blaszczynski

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Media & Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetPsychologyPsychosocialControl (management)ScrutinyIllusion of controlLimitingCognitionInterpretative phenomenological analysisQualitative researchSocial psychologyApplied psychologyInternet privacyPsychiatrySociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations95
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Media & SocietySame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207