The interactive effects of avoidance coping and dysphoric mood on problem gambling for female and male gamblers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study involving 83 female and 72 male gamblers tested the direct and interactional effects of avoidance coping and five dysphoric moods on problem gambling via regression analysis. Important differences were found between female and male gamblers. For female gamblers, loneliness, boredom, anxiety, depression and avoidance coping were all positively related to problem gambling. Additionally, interactions between these mood states and avoidance coping significantly predicted problem gambling; female gamblers with high dysphoria and high avoidance coping showed substantially more symptoms of problem gambling than those scoring high on only one variable. In contrast, loneliness and stress were the only significant predictors of problem gambling for males - neither avoidance coping nor any of the interactional relationships between mood and coping predicted problem gambling. These results support previous qualitative studies and suggest that female problem gamblers gamble as an escape from dysphoric moods. Even though male problem gamblers expressed more negative affect than male non-problem gamblers, there was no evidence to suggest that negative mood was a precursor rather than an outcome of gambling behaviour.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".