Être passionné un peu, beaucoup, énormément? Le concept de la passion chez les joueurs de poker, une étude qualitative.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La passion est étudiée depuis une quinzaine d’années chez les joueurs de jeu de hasard et d’argent. Elle comprend deux formes, soit la passion obsessive (PO) qui est contrôlante et la passion harmonieuse (PH) qui laisse de la place à d’autres activités du joueur. Les études transversales associent la PO aux problèmes de jeu, ce qui n’est pas le cas de la PH. Toutefois, la pertinence de l’utilisation du concept de passion et son influence sur les comportements de jeu, selon le discours des joueurs, sont totalement méconnues. Les objectifs de cette étude étaient d’examiner la pertinence du concept de passion chez des joueurs poker (JdP) et de comprendre les liens entre les deux formes de passion et les problèmes de jeu. Cette étude qualitative descriptive est la deuxième composante d’une étude mixte séquentielle auprès de JdP du Québec (n=12). L’analyse de contenu thématique a été réalisée en privilégiant la thématisation en continu. Parmi les participants, la majorité a été ou est actuellement passionnée de poker et les deux formes de passion sont des concepts pertinents selon les joueurs. Le fait d’être passionné serait l’un des facteurs influençant les comportements de jeu. Toutefois, un JdP peut continuer à jouer sans être passionné alors que l’on peut également être passionné sans nécessairement jouer fréquemment. Il ne semble donc pas y avoir de lien direct entre la passion et la fréquence de jeu. La pertinence du concept de passion pour les joueurs permet de penser qu’il pourrait être utilisé en prévention ou encore dans le traitement des JdP.Abstract Passion among gamblers has been studied for the last decade and a half. There are two forms of passion: obsessive passion (OP), which is controlling, and harmonious passion (HP), which leaves room for the gambler’s other activities. Cross-sectional studies associate OP with gambling problems, which is not the case for HP. The relevance of the concept of passion and passion’s influence on gambling behaviour are, however, uncertain, according to gamblers themselves. The objectives of this study were to examine the relevance of the concept of passion for poker players (PP) and understand the connections between the two forms of passion and gambling problems. This qualitative descriptive study is the second part of a sequential mixed study with PPs in Québec (n=12). The thematic content analysis was conducted using continuous thematization. The majority of the participants were or are currently passionate about poker, and both forms of passion are relevant concepts for these players. According to them, being passionate is one of the behaviours that influences gambling behaviour. A PP may, however, continue to play without being passionate, but also be passionate without necessarily playing frequently. There does not, therefore, seem to be any direct connection between passion and frequency of play. The relevance of the concept of passion for poker players suggests that it may be used preventively or in the treatment of PPs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".