Gambling Addiction Norway – experiences among members of a Norwegian self-help group for problem gambling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most previous studies on self-help groups for problem gambling have been conducted in the US and Canada involving Gamblers Anonymous. We report findings from an interview study with an phenomenological approach comprising nine participants from two Gambling Addiction Norway self-help groups, thus examining another location and type of self-help group. Gambling Addiction Norway is atheoretical, the groups and their work are not based on specific beliefs or strategies for recovery. Participants met the criteria for current (n = 4) or life-time (n = 5) Gambling Disorder (GD). Thematic analysis was used to investigate how group processes were experienced. Three themes were identified. The first theme ‘Shared narratives and understanding’ included accounts of relatedness, understanding, hope of recovery, and socially rewarding experiences. The second theme ‘Keeping it relevant to problem gambling’ included accounts of disagreements over meeting structure, contemplation and realization of one’s gambling problem and gambling-related content. The final theme ‘Changes over time’ included accounts of starting in the group, reduction of gambling urges among people with current GD and relapse prevention among people with life-time GD. Results are interpreted in light of established theories of self-help groups and suggest that common therapeutic factors operate across various types of self-help groups for problem gambling.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".