The Social Casino Gaming-Gambling Link: Motivation for Playing Social Casino Games Determines Whether Self-Reported Gambling Increases or Decreases Among Disordered Gamblers
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
Engagement with social casino games (i.e., free online casino-like games available on social networking sites) has been found to be a risk factor for increased gambling behaviours (Kim, Wohl, Salmon, Gupta, & Derevensky, 2015). However, this may not be true for all social casino gamers. In the current research, we tested the idea that motivation to play social casino games will predict changes in self-reported gambling behaviours among disordered gamblers. Results showed that disordered gamblers (N = 140) who were motivated to play social casino games for the social connection it provides or for skill building reported an increase in their gambling. Conversely, playing in order to cope with negative life events or for excitement was not predictive of gambling. However, gamblers who reported playing social casino games to reduce cravings to gamble reported an overall decrease in gambling. The implications of social casino games as a potential harm reduction strategy for some disordered gamblers are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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