MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4313242430 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-26963-9

Pictograms to aid laypeople in identifying the addictiveness of gambling products (PictoGRRed study)

2022· article· en· W4313242430 on OpenAlexaff
Amandine Luquiens, Morgane Guillou, Julie Giustiniani, Servane Barrault, Julie Caillon, Hélèna Delmas, Sophia Achab, Bruno Bento, Joël Billieux, Damien Brevers, Aymeric Brody, Paul Brunault, Gaëlle Challet‐Bouju, Mariano Chóliz Montañés, Luke Clark, Aurélien Cornil, Jean-Michel Costes, Gaëtan Devos, Rosa Díaz, Ana Estévez, Giacomo Grassi, Anders Håkansson, Yasser Khazaal, Daniel L. King, Francisco J. Labrador, Hibai López-González, Philip Newall, José C. Perales, Aurélien Ribadier, Guillaume Sescousse, Steve Sharman, Pierre Taquet, Isabelle Varescon, Cora von Hammerstein, Thierry Bonjour, Lucía Romo, Marie Grall‐Bronnec

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPictogramPsychologyAddictionPopulationClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structural addictive characteristics of gambling products are important targets for prevention, but can be unintuitive to laypeople. In the PictoGRRed (Pictograms for Gambling Risk Reduction) study, we aimed to develop pictograms that illustrate the main addictive characteristics of gambling products and to assess their impact on identifying the addictiveness of gambling products by laypeople. We conducted a three-step study: (1) use of a Delphi consensus method among 56 experts from 13 countries to reach a consensus on the 10 structural addictive characteristics of gambling products to be illustrated by pictograms and their associated definitions, (2) development of 10 pictograms and their definitions, and (3) study in the general population to assess the impact of exposure to the pictograms and their definitions (n = 900). French-speaking experts from the panel assessed the addictiveness of gambling products (n = 25), in which the mean of expert's ratings was considered as the true value. Participants were randomly provided with the pictograms and their definitions, or with a standard slogan, or with neither (control group). We considered the control group as representing the baseline ability of laypeople to assess the addictiveness of gambling products. Each group and the French-speaking experts rated the addictiveness of 14 gambling products. The judgment criterion was the intraclass coefficients (ICCs) between the mean ratings of each group and the experts, reflecting the level of agreement between each group and the experts. Exposure to the pictograms and their definition doubled the ability of laypeople to assess the addictiveness of gambling products compared with that of the group that read a slogan or the control group (ICC = 0.28 vs. 0.14 (Slogan) and 0.14 (Control)). Laypeople have limited awareness of the addictive characteristics of gambling products. The pictograms developed herein represent an innovative tool for universally empowering prevention and for selective prevention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicGambling Behavior and Treatments→French-language works237,207→