MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379524758 · doi:10.54254/2753-7048/7/20220832

Adolescent Online Gaming Disorder, Comorbidity, Neural Mechanism and Psychotherapy of Internet Gaming Disorder

2023· article· en· W4379524758 on OpenAlexaff
Yubo Gui

Bibliographic record

VenueLecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComorbidityAddictionPsychologyThe InternetPsychotherapistBehavioral addictionClinical psychologyMechanism (biology)Intervention (counseling)Cognitive behavioral therapyCognitionPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the sharp increase in the number of online game addicts, this paper systematically reviewed the neural mechanism, comorbidity, and psychotherapy of adolescent online game addicts. Online gaming disorder (IGD) is a new concept, which has been studied in many aspects in different literature. The analysis of existing research results shows that inhibition control and risk behaviors of adolescents with online gaming addiction are increased, and depression and dissociative experience is a common comorbidity of Internet game disorder. Single psychotherapy cannot effectively treat adolescents with online gaming addiction. Comprehensive psychological intervention based on cognitive behavior therapy is more effective for adolescent participants. This paper aims to analyze the existing literature, systematically review the neural mechanism, comorbidity, and psychotherapy of adolescent online game disorder, and provide guidance for future research in this emerging field. At the end of this paper, these suggestions will help scholars find problems and gaps that have not been fully explored, and these problems and gaps can become the basis for further research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.342 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public MediaSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207