MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761937731 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2017.36.1

Internet Gambling: A Critical Review of Behavioural Tracking Research

2017· review· en· W2761937731 on OpenAlex
Bernardo T. Chagas, Jorge F.S. Gomes

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetPsychologyTracking (education)LigneLotteryField (mathematics)PhenomenonMeaning (existential)Empirical researchSocial psychologyHumanitiesEpistemologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews and analyzes studies that are focused on Internet gambling with the use of behavioural tracking and big data to identify gambling behaviour. The behaviour of gamblers has been extensively studied and much has been published on the subject. The vast majority of research has relied on self-reported gambling behaviour or case study research. With the advent of the Internet, however, it has become possible for researchers to remotely study the real behaviour of gamblers. The goal has been to empirically describe playing behaviour in several conditions and contexts. Existing research, conducted since the 2000s, focuses on several forms of gambling such as sports betting, casino, poker, and lottery, but there is still only a concise body of research on gambling behaviour with the use of Internet gambling tracking data. Most studies are based on the same databases, meaning that a few companies and websites were the basis for most of the research produced so far. It is important to explore new sources of information, methodologies, and approaches to enrich discussion and contribute to a better understanding of this field. The empirical analysis of gambling behaviour with the use of tracking data was found to greatly contribute to the understanding of player behaviour, despite existing limitations and problems. Considering that Internet gambling behavioural tracking is still a fairly recent phenomenon, much can still be done to further develop this field of research.Cet article examine et analyse les études axées sur le jeu en ligne qui recourent au suivi comportemental et aux mégadonnées pour cerner le comportement lié au jeu. Or, on a souvent étudié le comportement des joueurs et on a beaucoup publié sur le sujet, mais jusqu’à présent, la majeure partie de la recherche repose sur le comportement autodéclaré ou la recherche fondée sur les études de cas. Avec l’avènement d’Internet, il est dorénavant possible pour les chercheurs d’étudier à distance le comportement réel des joueurs. L’objectif a donc consisté à décrire de manière empirique le comportement lié au jeu dans plusieurs conditions et contextes. La recherche existante, menée depuis les années 2000, se concentre sur plusieurs formes de jeux de hasard tels que les paris sportifs, le casino, le poker et la loterie. Mais à ce jour, il n’existe qu’un corpus de recherches très concis sur le comportement lié au jeu qui utilise des données de suivi sur le jeu par Internet. La plupart des études sont fondées sur les mêmes bases de données, car seulement quelques entreprises et sites Web ont servi de base à la plupart des recherches produites jusqu’à maintenant. Il est donc important d’explorer de nouvelles sources d’information, méthodologies et approches pour pouvoir enrichir les discussions et améliorer la compréhension de ce domaine. L’analyse empirique du comportement lié au jeu à l’aide de données de suivi a ainsi largement contribué à la compréhension du comportement du joueur en dépit des limites et problèmes existants. Si l’on tient compte du fait que le suivi comportemental du jeu sur Internet est un phénomène encore assez récent, il reste beaucoup à faire pour exploiter davantage ce domaine de recherche.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.922
GPT teacher head0.673
Teacher spread0.249 · 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