MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791674564 · doi:10.1007/s11469-018-9872-1

Adolescent Problem Video Gaming in Urban and Non-urban Regions

2018· article· en· W2791674564 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jing Shi, Angela Boak, Robert B. Mann, Nigel E. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersYork University
KeywordsHealth psychologyPsychologyPublic healthUrban areaVideo gameMental healthGeographyMultimediaMedicineComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to explore the differences in adolescent problem video gaming in a large urban area (Toronto) compared to a non-urban region of Ontario (Northern Ontario). The results of this study showed that 76.6% of adolescents in the urban region and 80.3% of adolescents in the non-urban region played video games in the past year ( n = 2175). Adolescents in the urban region were significantly more likely than adolescents in the non-urban region to experience problem video gaming (16.7 and 8.8%, respectively). Males and those reporting poorer mental health were more likely to experience problem video gaming. Those who engaged in delinquent behaviors were more likely to experience problem video gaming in both regions, while problem gamblers were more likely to experience problem gaming in urban regions. Lower scholastic achievement was correlated with problem video gaming in the non-urban region.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mental Health and AddictionSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207