MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553536026 · doi:10.1037/adb0000227

Life events and problem gambling severity: A prospective study of adult gamblers.

2016· article· en· W2553536026 on OpenAlexaff
Christelle Luce, Sylvia Kairouz, Louise Nadeau, Eva Monson

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Addictive Behaviors · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsycINFOCohortPopulationCohort studyClinical psychologyPsychiatryDemographyMEDLINEMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several studies have shown that gambling problems are cyclical but few have empirically investigated factors that are associated with change. The purpose of this article is to prospectively examine associations between life events and problem gambling severity in a cohort of gamblers. Occurrence of life events and gambling problem severity were assessed 3 times over a period of 2 years in a cohort of nonproblem and problem gamblers (N = 179) drawn from a representative sample derived from a population survey. Cross-lagged analyses revealed that cumulative number of life events were associated with an increase in severity of problem gambling 12 months later. Regression analyses showed that significant life events in several domains, for example, "change in sleeping habits," "accidental injury or illness" or "retirement," are likely to be associated over time to the increase or the continuation of risky gambling habits. This study's findings on the potential negative influence of cumulative number of life events, or of specific ones, are informative for secondary prevention and treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology of Addictive BehaviorsSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207