MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251549639 · doi:10.35940/ijrte.b1003.0782s619

Gambling Problem by Gambler Sub-Types among College Students in Korea

2019· article· en· W4251549639 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seong-Ui Kim, Jung‐Hyun Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsPsychologySeriousnessImpulsivityAddictionClinical psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to investigate a seriousness of gambling problems by gambler sub-type among college students in Korea. Data were collected from 581 college students of Seoul, Gyeonggi-do, Chungcheong-do, and Gyeongsang-do area through the questionnaire and a total of 577 questionnaires were statistically processed excluding the questionnaires of missing answers. To analyze the gambling problems by gambler sub-types among college students, a cross-sectional research design was used in the study. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Among the 577 respondents of this study, 62.2% had gambling experience and especially 6.1% had illegal gambling experience. The prevalence rate of gambling addiction by the Canadian problem gambling index was 14.0% in this study. A significant statistical difference between gambler sub-types in gender, college grade, spending money, beginning of the first gambling, illegal gambling experience, route to start gambling, self-esteem, impulsivity, and irrational gambling belief was found in this study. The number of respondents who knew free counselling centers when there was a gambling problem was only 20 (3.5%), so it is quite required to carry out preventive education and to publicize free counselling centers for a gambling problem. In case that the respondents have a gambling problem, what they wanted to be supported most was psychotherapy and counseling, family counseling, hospital treatment, group therapy or Gamblers Anonymous meeting, and financial and legal consultation. It is required to continue further surveys on gambling among college students and to take a proper measure preventing a gambling problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueInternational Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)Same topicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207