General and Gambling-Specific Types of Control: Extending Mental Health Theory and Concepts to Problem Gambling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: A key factor in our understanding of problem gambling is control: over gambling outcomes (illusion of control) and behaviours (gambling self-efficacy). Research in the gambling field rarely looks beyond these gambling-specific types of control to more general types when identifying predictors of gambling problems. This work begins to integrate control concepts from the mental health and problem gambling fields by examining the importance of a more general type of control from the Stress Process Model: sense of control over life events. Methods: Closed-ended questionnaire and open-ended interview responses from 30 frequent (weekly or more) gamblers were used to examine whether general and gambling-specific types of control are linked as predicted in a conceptual model of control. Results: For some people, beliefs about one type of control are extended to inform beliefs about another type of control. In many cases, understandings of outcomes in life inform beliefs about controlling gambling outcomes and behaviours. Conclusions: Different types of control work together, and general understandings can translate into gambling-specific beliefs. Future work is needed to confirm and specify these relationships and clarify their importance to understanding the development of gambling problems.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it