MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318996119 · doi:10.1080/14459795.2022.2164042

Enabling New Strategies to Prevent Problematic Online Gambling: A Machine Learning Approach for Identifying At-risk Online Gamblers in France

2023· article· en· W4318996119 on OpenAlexafffund
Sylvia Kairouz, Jean‐Michel Costes, W. Spencer Murch, Pascal Doray-Demers, Clément Carrier, Vincent Eroukmanoff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Gambling Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsHarmPsychologyReferralMachine learningArtificial intelligenceGambling disorderComputer scienceSocial psychologyPsychiatryAddictionMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gambling activities are rapidly migrating online. Algorithms that effectively detect at-risk users could improve the prevention of online gambling-related harms. We sought to identify machine learning algorithms capable of detecting self-reported gambling problems using demographic and behavioral data. Online gamblers were recruited from all licensed online gambling platforms in France by the French Online Gambling Regulatory Authority (ARJEL). Participants completed the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI), and these data were merged and synchronized with past-year online gambling behaviors recorded on the operators’ websites. Among all participants (N = 9,306), some users reported betting exclusively on sports (N = 1,183), horseracing (N = 1,711), or poker (N = 2,442) activities. In terms of Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC), our algorithms showed excellent performance in classifying individuals at a moderate-to-high (PGSI 5+; AUC = 83.20%), or high (PGSI 8+; AUC = 87.70%) risk for experiencing gambling-related harms. Further, these models identified novel behavioral markers of harmful online gambling for future research. We conclude that machine learning can be used to detect online gamblers at-risk for experiencing gambling problems. Using algorithms like these, operators and regulators can develop targeted harm prevention and referral-to-treatment initiatives for at-risk users.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Gambling StudiesSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207