Social representations of pleasure in gambling among young adults: Between homo ludens and homo economicus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pleasure is one of the main reasons many young adults are interested in gambling. While several studies have highlighted the relationship between gambling and pleasure and how it is most related to motivation to gamble, very few have explored the meaning of pleasure in the gambler’s experience. The purpose of this paper is to understand the meaning of pleasure in the relationship between young adults and gambling by studying the social representations of this concept. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 young adults aged 18 to 30 who had been gambling in the past year. An analysis of the representations in light of the social, economic, and political contexts within which the relationship to gambling is constructed leads us to suggest an analysis of the relationship to pleasure with gambling as (1) an expression of neoliberalism’s values and principles, and (2) a ludic experience on the margins of neoliberal ideology. More broadly, these relationships to pleasure are part of two conceptions of the human being: homo economicus and homo ludens , or a hybrid of the two. The findings are discussed in light of these representations of pleasure, which appear to be exploited by the gambling industry to serve its financial interests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".