MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098517901

ORI GIN AL PA PER Problem Gambling and Intimate Partner Violence

2007· article· en· W7098517901 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngerDomestic violencePoison controlSuicide preventionInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsAddictionSubstance abuse
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007 Abstract This study examined the prevalence and severity of intimate partner violence (IPV) among 248 problem gamblers (43 women, 205 men) recruited from newspaper advertisements. The main outcome measures used were the Canadian Problem Gambling Index, the Conflicts Tactics Scale-2, the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2, the drug and alcohol section of the Addiction Severity Index and the substance use section of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV. In this sample, 62.9 % of participants reported perpetrating and/or being the victims of IPV in the past year, with 25.4 % reporting perpetrating severe IPV. The majority of the sample (64.5%) also had clinically significant anger problems, which was associated with an increased risk of being both the perpetrator and victim of IPV. The presence of a lifetime substance use disorder among participants who had clinically significant anger problems further increased the likelihood of both IPV perpetration and victimization. These findings underscore the importance of routinely screening gambling clients for anger and IPV, and the need to develop public policy, prevention and treatment programs to address IPV among problem gamblers. Future

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207