Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Terminal Damage: The Politics of VLTs in Atlantic Canada W.D. Walls Terminal Damage: The Politics of VLTs in Atlantic Canada by Peter McKenna. Fernwood Publishing, 2008. In this well-organized book, McKenna does a superb job of identifying and explaining issues of public policy surrounding the video lottery terminal (VLT) gambling business in Atlantic Canada. Drawing on numerous sources, McKenna illustrates the coincidence of interests that has led to a proliferation of the VLT industry and the human side-effects associated with it. The author states this on the back cover with such clarity and precision that my words are no substitute for his: The truth is that financial stress, marriage break-up, physical and mental health issues, depression, alcohol dependency and suicide go hand-in-hand with pathological gambling. In spite of this obvious scourge, governments knowingly turn a blind eye toward the social fallout. What they do have an eye for is the annual revenue figures derived from gambling. VLTs, by far the most addictive of all gambling activities, are also the biggest cash cow. This book examines why public policy action has been more symbolic than [End Page 384] substantive and how VLTs have become increasingly politicized since the early 1990s. It is a clarion call to governments to take real action. An overview of the institutional and historical development of gambling in Canada—and VLTs in particular—is provided in the first chapter. This chapter provides not only a brief legal and legislative background on gambling in Canada, but also the gain of control over lotteries and VLTs by the provinces based on a model adopted by various US states. For each of the Atlantic provinces, McKenna systematically by chapter documents the introduction of VLTs, their effects, and the political landscape. The mechanics of the political process surrounding VLT gambling is thoroughly documented; while some readers seeking analytical or empirical evidence might occasionally get bogged down in the detailed descriptions of the lives of addicts, McKenna succeeds in passionately putting a human face on the social problems associated with VLT gambling. One of the pillars of VLT proliferation is that the same provincial governments that benefit financially from gaming revenues — including the important component accounted for by VLTs — are their own regulators. As McKenna puts it, “There is a manifest conflict of interest here, in the sense that governments are seeking to benefit financially from a sector of the economy in which they have regulatory authority” (p. 15). A second pillar of VLT proliferation is the crown corporation in charge of gaming. “As an organization with a staff, budget resources, and a public policy mandate, its business priorities are to ensure its survival as a bureaucratic entity, to expand its operational reach if possible, and to fortify its reason for being” (p. 17). Together with local businesses that benefit from VLT revenues, McKenna demonstrates an iron triangle of interests that has led to the expansion of VLT gambling. As long as governments are able to control or limit any political fallout, they are likely to continue to cash in on the potential for increased gaming revenues. Our knowledge of the costs and benefits of gambling markets is incomplete. The cost side is particularly difficult to quantify since many of the costs are intangibles resulting from compulsive gambling behaviour. In this work there is no attempt to quantify the costs of gambling, nor is there any quantification of expenditures on counselling, public relations campaigns, or studies of the gambling sector. The human cost is illustrated in the tales of woe of VLT addicts. Governments have implemented so-called responsible gaming strategies to combat the social cost of the gaming industry. In reality, though, governments are doing precious little of any real substance in confronting the growing problem of video lottery gambling: it is all about smoke and mirrors when it comes to VLTs. We are repeatedly told that they will do everything humanly possible to deal with the VLT mess they themselves have created—short of any real, substantive action, of course, (p. 208) Because this book does not bring systematic data collection or statistical analysis to bear on the policy issues at hand...
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 | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 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 ».