Review of Gambling problems in youth: Theoretical and applied perspectives.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
JEFFREYL. DEREVENSKYand RINA GUPTA (Eds.) Gambling Problems in Youth: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives New York: Kluwer Academic Press, 2004, 264 pages (ISBN 0-306-48585-0, US$65.00 Hardcover) As the public view of gambling in the United States and Canada has evolved over the past couple of decades from sin, to vice, to a benign form of recreation, participation rates have markedly increased. For a minority, gambling has had devastating consequences for themselves and their families, employers, and communities. Its emergence has resulted in addiction researchers and clinicians arguing about which dependence is more harmful - alcoholism or pathological gambling. A persuasive case can be made for both sides but most agree that problem gambling generally shows the more rapid and devastating impact on a family's equilibrium. At the same time, practitioners across North America are starting to see the effects of growing gambling activity on their clinical caseloads. Research into problem gambling is still in its infancy. Despite a general paucity of literature on problem gambling, two recent books, Grant and Potenza's Pathological Gambling: A Clinical Guide to Treatment (American Psychiatric, 2004) and Gambling Problems in Ymitli (the focus of (his review), are significant contributions to the field. Both have joined my list of core texts on problem-gambling behaviour. Derevensky and Gupta are world recognized leaders in youth gambling research and co-directors of the McGiII University Youth Gambling Research and Treatment Clinic and the International Centre for \buth Gambling Problems and High-Risk Behaviours. Their new book specifically addresses gambling problems in youlh, and presents a balanced and comprehensive overview of theory, research, and treatment knowledge. Until recently, little was known about this area, much like the situation that existed some 50 years ago when the concept of juvenile alcoholism was not yet plausible (diagnostic criteria involved a lengthy time span of use, withdrawal, and medical problems associated with use). In a similar fashion, we are only now recognizing the problems associated with this first generation of youth that has been exposed to widespread availability, acceptance, and promotion of gambling. Stinchfield reports that in early adolescence, the prevalence of gambling involvement rivals alcohol use and far exceeds the use of illicit drugs or tobacco. The level of research funding for adolescent gambling has grown quickly over the past 10 years, especially among Canadian provinces, and the resulting knowledge base is expanding rapidly. On a related front, the call for a gold standard for measuring prevalence has led to the development of a new, soon-to-bereleased adolescent gambling screen cooperatively undertaken by a number of publicly funded Canadian research groups. The field is in many ways defined by the dynamics of new research and clinical activities, and the need to be kept current is apparent. Derevensky and Gupta organize their book into seven sections: Prevalence, Correlates and Risk Factors, New Technologies, Measurement Issues, Treatment, Prevention, and Social Policy Issues, comprising a total of 12 well-written chapters. The introductory section is written by Dewey Jacobs, the patriarch of gambling research who suggests that the age of onset for gambling will continue to decrease as more children see their parents and relatives gambling. His chapter deftly predicts the explosive popularity of poker tournaments and celebrity poker on TV, and parent reports of their preteen children playing Texas Hold'em with their friends. An issue that emerges repeatedly is the debate over the actual prevalence of gambling and problem gambling in adolescent populations. Despite the inadequacy of currently available measurement tools, along with fundamental nomenclature and conceptual disagreement, all sides concur that significant numbers of adolescents are harmed by their gambling. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».