MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997414203 · doi:10.1177/1555412019897524

Measuring Problem Online Video Gaming and Its Association With Problem Gambling and Suspected Motivational, Mental Health, and Behavioral Risk Factors in a Sample of University Students

2020· article· en· W2997414203 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeff Biegun, Jason D. Edgerton, Lance W. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueGames and Culture · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyVideo gameMental healthAddictionSample (material)Association (psychology)Behavioral addictionEntertainmentSocial psychologyApplied psychologyMultimediaComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, the issue of problem online video game playing and its potential connection with problem gambling has drawn increased attention. Although conceptually similar to many behavioral addictions, there is still no clear consensus on how to best measure and assess problem video game playing. This study validates one proposed measure of problem video gaming—the Problem Video Game Playing Test (PVGT)—in a Canadian undergraduate university student sample. Multivariate results indicate that problem video gaming is positively associated with the average length of time spent gaming, social alienation, and online gaming motives such as competition, escape, coping, recreation, and socializing; but, contrary to the gateway hypothesis, problem gambling and several of its mental health correlates—depression, anxiety, and stress—are not associated with problem video gaming as measured by the PVGT. Limitations and implications of this analysis are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGames and CultureSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207