Financially Focused Self-Concept is Associated with Etiological and Maintenance Factors of Gambling Disorder Among Non-Problem Gamblers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined associations between financially focused self-concept and known etiological and maintenance factors of problematic gambling in a sample of community-based gamblers (N = 412). Although most participants (95.6%) did not report gambling problems, those high in financial focus were more likely to be impulsive, to be dissatisfied with their financial situation, to believe that they have a poor ability to cope with adversity in their life, and to have erroneous beliefs about gambling. The magnitude of these associations was moderate. The etiological risk and maintenance factors explained unique variance in financially focused self-concept. Thus, the results provide novel insight into the characteristics of financially focused gamblers.RésuméNous avons examiné les associations entre le concept de soi d’un point de vue financier et les facteurs étiologiques et de maintien connus du jeu problématique dans un échantillon de joueurs communautaires (N = 412). Bien que la plupart des participants (95,6%) n’aient pas déclaré avoir de problèmes de jeu, ceux qui accordaient beaucoup d’importance à l’aspect financier étaient plus susceptibles d’être impulsifs, insatisfaits de leur situation financière, croyaient avoir une faible capacité à affronter l’adversité dans leur vie et avaient des croyances erronées sur les jeux d’argent. L’importance de ces associations était modérée. Les facteurs étiologiques de risque et de maintien ont expliqué la seule variance du concept de soi d’un point de vue financier. Ainsi, les résultats fournissent un nouvel aperçu des caractéristiques des joueurs ayant une image axée sur les finances.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".