Are Some Subtypes of Video Gamer More at Risk for Gambling Issues? A Latent Class Analysis of a Canadian Sample of University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently there has been growing interest in identifying links between video game playing and problem gambling. As video games continue to take on more gambling-like elements such as loot boxes, there is rising concern that they represent a potential pathway towards problem gambling. In this study, we explored video gamer profiles in a sample of Canadian undergraduate university students (n = 687) to examine whether subgroups of gamers had different risk profiles for problem video gaming and/or problem gambling. Three predominant subgroups emerged: universal, free-to-play, and general gamer classes. Whereas the free-to-play class was associated with higher average amounts of time spent playing video games, the universal class was associated with higher average scores on measures of problem video gaming, problem gambling, and impulsivity. Although motivational differences were evident, there were no significant mental health differences among subgroups in this sample.RésuméOn s’intéresse de plus en plus depuis peu de temps à l’établissement de liens entre la pratique des jeux vidéo et le jeu compulsif. À mesure que les jeux vidéo comportent davantage d’éléments de jeux de hasard comme des coffres à butin, on s’inquiète davantage du fait qu’ils puissent mener au jeu compulsif. Cette étude a examiné le profil de joueurs de jeux vidéo parmi un échantillon d’étudiants canadiens de premier cycle (n = 687) afin de déterminer si les sous-groupes de joueurs présentaient un profil de risque différent pour le jeu vidéo compulsif et/ou le jeu compulsif. Trois sous-groupes prédominants sont ressortis : universel, gratuit et général. Le groupe des jeux gratuits était associé à une plus grande quantité de temps consacrée à jouer à des jeux vidéo, le groupe universel était associé pour sa part à un pointage moyen plus élevé au titre des paramètres de mesure du jeu vidéo compulsif, du jeu compulsif et de l’impulsivité. Les différences de motivation étaient évidentes, mais les sous-groupes de cet échantillon ne présentaient aucune différence importante sur le plan de la santé mentale.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".