Alcohol affects video lottery terminal (VLT) gambling behaviors and cognitions differently.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People frequently combine alcohol use and gambling. However, our understanding of the effects of alcohol on gambling behavior is limited, both in terms of what the effects are and how they occur. The effects of a moderately intoxicating dose of alcohol (i.e., a blood alcohol concentration of .06 g%) on the video lottery terminal (VLT) gambling behaviors and cognitions of community-recruited nonpathological (n = 30) and probable pathological gamblers (n = 30) were compared. Alcohol increased the rate of double up betting (i.e., choosing to play a bonus game, after a winning video poker hand, which involves trying to pick a higher ranked card than the dealer's card from among 5 face down cards) of probable pathological gamblers, but did not influence their irrational beliefs about VLT play. Alcohol maintained the irrational beliefs about VLT play of nonpathological gamblers, but did not influence their gambling behaviors. Results are consistent with a growing body of research finding that gambling cognitions have an equivocal role in explaining actual gambling behaviors. Potential mechanisms for the observed effects are discussed. Applied implications discussed include: educating regular VLT players about the effects of alcohol on irrational gambling cognitions; reconsidering policies and practices that make alcohol available where machine gambling takes place; and targeting even moderate alcohol use in the treatment of gambling problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".