MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The role of alexithymia, boredom, desire thinking, and subjective risk intelligence in individuals with gambling disorder: a cross-sectional study

2023· article· en· W4353096767 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giuseppe Craparo, Valentina Lucia La Rosa, Palmira Faraci, Giulia Costanzo, Sara VOLPE, Alessio Gori, Carmelo M. Vicario

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Psychiatry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoredomAlexithymiaPsychologyToronto Alexithymia ScaleFeelingClinical psychologyCognitionAssociation (psychology)Developmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to explore the association between alexithymia, boredom, desire thinking, and subjective risk intelligence in individuals with gambling disorder (GD).METHODS: A total of 94 participants (47 disordered gamblers and 47 control subjects) completed the following questionnaires: Toronto Alexithymia Scale - 20 (TAS-20), Multidimensional State Boredom Scale (MSBS), Desire Thinking Questionnaire (DTQ), Subjective Risk Intelligence Scale (SRIS).RESULTS: The subjects with GD fall within the borderline range of the TAS-20 scores, with higher scores in the dimension of difficulty in identifying feelings (M=20.04, SD=7.25 vs. M=14.09, SD=2.68, P<0.001; d=1.08) and in the externally oriented thinking style (M=25.45, SD=2.95 vs. M=21.15, SD=5.33, P<0.001; d=0.99). Furthermore, the GD group has high scores of boredom and desire thinking than the control group. Finally, GD subjects showed lower SRIS total scores than the control ones, although the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (M=65.45, SD=9.87 vs. M=68.34, SD=4.51, P=0.07; d=0.37). All variables investigated in the study were significantly correlated in the clinical group whereas no statistically significant correlations were shown in the control group.CONCLUSIONS: This study seems to confirm that alexithymia, boredom, subjective risk intelligence, and desire thinking are strictly related in participants with GD. More specifically, the cognitive processes involved in desire thinking have an important role in the onset and maintenance of GD and need further investigation. Furthermore, this study underlines an interesting relationship between subjective risk intelligence and alexithymia in gamblers, which has not yet been adequately investigated in the literature on the topic. For this reason, our data represent an important starting point for future studies on this point.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinerva PsychiatrySame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207