Women who gamble online: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online gambling is becoming ever-more prevalent. With research beginning to document that women are increasing their online gambling presence, there is a need to consolidate the evidence base to date with a view to better understand women’s specific experiences when gambling online. A scoping review was conducted to map and identify the existing literature surrounding women and their online gambling experiences and practices. Of 1235 articles found within eight databases, 13 were included based on their interest in women’s online gambling behavior. The review demonstrated the scarcity and uniqueness surrounding women’s experiences with online gambling, which is continuously increasing, and women are showing a preference for online casino games. Women live unique online gambling experiences, such that internal motivators (i.e. safety and anonymity) and external motivators (i.e. play for free) were identified among the variety of reasons that bring women to online gambling, in addition to the feelings of shame and guilt that women feel when gambling online. The results of this review highlight the many areas of gambling studies related to women that need more research investment, such as reducing the homogeneity of samples and online gambling activities, and prevention programming. Specifically, the current work suggests that treating women online gamblers as a homogeneous group does not allow us to understand the diversity of experiences when it comes to different women as well as different online gambling activities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.021 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".