MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3012324898 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13825

Basic Psychological Needs and Passion: Exploring Predictors of Problematic Video Gaming Behaviours

2019· dissertation· en· W3012324898 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Capaldi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionMediationPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Video gameSocial psychologySample (material)Moderated mediationVariety (cybernetics)Multimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problematic video gaming is a growing concern across the world.Critically, when video gaming interferes with the pursuit of life goals or begins to negatively affect other life domains (e.g., work, school, relationships), they are described as problematic gaming behaviours.Researchers have linked problematic gaming behaviours to negative outcomes in a variety of contexts, such as university performance and mental illness.However, research is only beginning to examine why problematic gaming develops.I explored possible relations between psychological needs frustration, obsessive passion, and problematic gaming behaviours.A direct model and a mediation model were explored across 2 studies.Study 1 found a small effect of psychological needs frustration, and a large effect of obsessive passion, whereas the indirect effect was not statistically significant.Study 2 recruited a larger sample targeted towards gamers and replicated the direct effects of study 1 and found a significant indirect effect in the mediation model.Factors related to problematic video gaming Capaldi, J. S.

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)0.010
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImpact of Technology on Adolescents→French-language works237,207→