MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405725635 · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2440779

Emotion regulation, need satisfaction, passion and problematic video game play during difficult times

2024· article· en· W4405725635 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Formosa, Julian Frommel, Regan L. Mandryk, Stephanie J. Tobin, Selen Türkay, Daniel Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueBehaviour and Information Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionVideo gamePsychologyAffect (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Social psychologyCognitive psychologyMultimediaComputer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is growing recognition of the role video games can play in helping people through challenging times, however many still argue that video game play can lead to adverse and problematic behaviours when relied upon to manage negative affect. This study sought to explore a number of factors that may play a role in influencing the likelihood one develops problematic habits of play, particularly in the context of difficult and stressful times. Specifically, this study utilised Self-Determination Theory and the Dualistic Model of Passion to explore the relationships between emotion regulation, psychological need satisfaction and frustration, passion for video games, and problematic video game play during times of difficulty and stress. A path analysis was conducted using data from 440 participants and found that, overall, emotion regulation may be associated with whether or not problematic play is likely to occur, particularly through its relationship with need satisfaction (and frustration) and video game passion.

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)0.007
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehaviour and Information TechnologySame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207