MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411091216 · doi:10.51982/bagimli.1675447

Mapping research on online gambling: a bibliometric analysis

2025· article· en· W4411091216 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhammed Akat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dependence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData scienceComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis of studies on online gambling. Web of Science Core database was used to obtain all publications on online gambling between 1998 and 2024. The bibliometric analysis was confined to studies published up to 2024, given that 2025 is still in progress and the complete body of literature for that year is not yet accessible. The bibliometric analysis was conducted using the VOSviewer program. The study initially determined that the number of studies in the domain of online gambling exhibited an overall increase from 1998 to 2024, with a few exceptions. A co-authorship analysis indicates that England is the most prolific nation in this field of study. Subsequently, Australia, Canada, the United States of America, and Spain are in descending order of productivity. The analysis yielded the conclusion that Nerilee Hing is the most influential researcher in the field of online gambling. The results of the cooccurrence analysis indicated that the most frequently used keywords were related to "gambling", "online gambling", "problem gambling", "responsible gambling", "addiction", "COVID-19", and "adolescent". In this study, it was concluded that research on online gambling addiction has increased over the years and that online gambling addiction has been emphasized in different cultures.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.1620.185
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.419
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.142 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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 venueJournal of DependenceSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207