Moderate-Risk and Problem Slot Machine Gamblers: A Typology of Gambling-Related Cognitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive distortions are said to play a key role in the development and maintenance of problem gambling, as well as in its treatment. Toneatto’s (1999, 2002) typology of gambling distortions provides a useful conceptualization of gambling-related cognitions, although game-type specification is absent from his analysis. Toneatto’s categorization was used in the present study to organize the beliefs of 43 slot machine gamblers experiencing either moderate-risk or problem gambling, recruited and interviewed in Toronto, Canada. The typology captured many of the gambling-related cognitions, although specific beliefs held by this sample of slot machine gamblers required revision of the original typology. This study provides unique insight into the cognitive structure of these beliefs, as described by gamblers, and their frequency count, suggesting that game type is an important factor when identifying and describing gambling-specific cognitive distortions. Les distorsions cognitives joueraient un rôle dans l’apparition et le maintien des problèmes de jeu, ainsi que dans leur traitement (Cunningham, Hodgins et Toneatto, 2014; Cunningham, Hodgins, Toneatto et Murphy, 2012; Fortune et Goodie, 2012). La typologie des distorsions cognitives liées au jeu de Toneatto (1999, 2002) est à ce titre un outil utile pour conceptualiser les processus cognitifs des joueurs, bien que l’analyse ne précise pas les types de jeux de hasard en cause (Milosevic et Ledgerwood, 2010). Le présent article cherche à organiser à l’aide des catégories de Toneatto (1999, 2002) les croyances de 43 utilisateurs d’appareils à sous présentant un risque moyen ou problématique, recrutés et interviewés à Toronto (Canada). En conclusion, cette typologie permet de rendre compte de nombreux processus cognitifs liés au jeu, bien que certaines des croyances propres à cet échantillon de joueurs utilisant des appareils à sous aient nécessité une révision des catégories initiales. Fournissant un aperçu unique de la structure cognitive associée à ces croyances, telles qu’elles ont été décrites par les joueurs et selon leur nombre d’occurrences, cette étude donne à penser que le type de jeu de hasard en cause constitue un facteur important pour cerner et décrire les distorsions cognitives rattachées au jeu.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".