Win or Lose: Negotiating meaning of time and money within three gambling settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rational management of expenditures has received much attention in the evaluation of problem gambling, overlooking however the contribution of the sociocultural context in which gambling occurs. This paper examines how moderate-risk and problem gamblers develop specific semantic frames within three settings—private, casino, and online—to structure time and money management to cope with all the contingencies associated with games of chance. Data were drawn from a qualitative component of a large survey of gambling practices conducted in 2008 among a random representative sample of Canadian undergraduate students. Focus groups were held with non-problem/low-risk gamblers (n = 15) and 90-minute semi-structured interviews were conducted with the moderate-risk/problem gamblers (n = 12). Analysis was carried out by applying a theory-driven coding template derived from a syncretic theoretical model combining an adapted version of an ecological model of gambling with game studies approaches. The exploration of three gambling settings demonstrates how each setting structures meaning and management of time and money. Negotiations between players of such structuro-semantic frames are central to maintaining each participant’s ease and engagement with the game. This intersubjectivity needs to be addressed when understanding risk and should be included in future health promotion efforts.La gestion rationnelle des dépenses a suscité beaucoup d’attention dans l’évaluation du jeu problématique, mais on a négligé l’influence du contexte socioculturel dans lequel se pratique le jeu. Cet article examine comment les joueurs à risque modéré et compulsifs développent des trames sémantiques spécifiques dans trois contextes (privé, casino, en ligne) pour organiser la gestion du temps et de l’argent afin de faire face à toutes les contingences associées aux jeux de hasard. Les données ont été tirées d’une composante qualitative d’un grand sondage sur les pratiques de jeu mené en 2008 auprès d’un échantillon représentatif aléatoire d’étudiants canadiens de premier cycle. Des groupes de discussion ont été organisés avec des joueurs sans problème/à faible risque (n = 15) et des entretiens semi-structurés de 90 minutes ont été réalisés avec des joueurs à risque modéré ou compulsifs (n = 12). L’analyse a été réalisée en appliquant un modèle de codage théorique dérivé d’un modèle syncrétique combinant une version adaptée d’un modèle écologique de jeu à des approches d’études de jeu. L’exploration de trois contextes de jeu démontre comment chaque contexte structure le sens et la gestion du temps et de l’argent. Les négociations entre les éléments de ces cadres structuro-sémantiques sont essentielles pour maintenir l’aisance et l’engagement du joueur avec le jeu. Cette intersubjectivité doit être abordée pour la compréhension du risque et incluse dans les futurs efforts de promotion de la santé.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".