ORI GIN AL PA PER Problem Gambling and Intimate Partner Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.006 |
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".