MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410619988 · doi:10.54254/2753-7064/2024.23313

Understanding Game Addiction Mechanism

2025· article· en· W4410619988 on OpenAlexaff
Xinyang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Humanities Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanism (biology)AddictionComputer sciencePsychologyNeuroscienceEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widespread popularity of online games has raised concerns about addiction, which can affect physical and mental health. This paper explores the problem of online game addiction from physiological and psychological perspectives, with special emphasis on changes in brain activity and cognitive patterns. From a physiological perspective, online games stimulate the brain's reward system, and addictive behaviors are associated with alterations in the dopamine pathway as well as changes in brain regions such as the prefrontal cortex and ventral striatum. From a psychological perspective, gaming addiction is influenced by the perceived value of rewards in gaming, maladaptive gaming behaviors, reliance on gaming for self-esteem, and the search for social approval. Treatments for online game addiction mainly include cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and pharmacological therapies (e.g., antidepressants), with the former helping to change maladaptive thoughts and behaviors. Future research should explore preventive measures from the perspective of game design, incorporate anti-addiction mechanisms, and strike a balance between entertainment and responsible gaming behavior.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.588
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.067 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Humanities ResearchSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207