Dispositional and contextual correlates of in-play sports betting and related harms: A 2-week ecological momentary assessment study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In-play betting is a novel form of sports betting that allows players to make continuous bets during a game. The present study examined the dispositional and contextual correlates of in-play sports betting and related harms. METHOD: = 41.02) who engaged in in-play betting. Participants first completed an online questionnaire including measures of problem gambling severity, childhood trauma, impulsivity, and emotion dysregulation. Participants then completed a 14-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study involving completing brief surveys twice per day. EMA surveys assessed in-play betting behaviors, motives, contexts, and harms. RESULTS: A total of 1,365 EMA surveys were completed, of which 32.89% involved placing at least one in-play bet. A total of 77 (91.67%) participants placed at least one in-play bet during the study period. Participants reported greater in-play betting involvement (the number of bets placed, money spent) and an increased likelihood of experiencing in-play betting-related financial and relationship harms when using substances while betting and when motivated to place in-play bets by an interest in sports or to "be in the game." Participants, who used substances during a greater proportion of in-play betting occasions, who more frequently endorsed coping motives for in-play betting, and who exhibited elevated problem gambling severity, reported greater in-play betting involvement and the likelihood of experiencing in-play betting-related harms overall. CONCLUSIONS: Responsible gambling initiatives targeting contextual risk factors, such as using alcohol and cannabis while in-play betting, may help to reduce the intensity of in-play betting and its associated harms. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".