The Leisure, Lifestyle, & Lifecycle Project (LLLP): A Longitudinal Study of Gambling in Alberta. Final Report for the Alberta Gambling Research Institute
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Leisure, Lifestyle, and Lifecycle Project (LLLP) is a five-year prospective longitudinal study designed to collect data on the factors influencing change in gambling and problem gambling behavior over time. A sample of 1808 participants from four locations representing the diversity of the province of Alberta (Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge area, and Grand Prairie area) were recruited primarily through random digit dialing. In order to assess the development of gambling problems over the lifespan, five critical age ranges were targeted: 13-15, 18-20, 23-25, 43-45 and 63-65 year-olds. Individuals with relatively heavy involvement with gambling were over sampled. A broad array of psychosocial variables was assessed at baseline via telephone, face-to-face and computer self-completion interviews. The sample was weighted to match the population of Alberta according to age, gender, geographic location and the over sampling procedure. The three follow-up interviews of the cohort were completed by paper- or Internet-based surveys. Retention in the fourth and final assessment was 76.2% for the adult cohorts, 71.8% for the adolescent cohort, and 75.1% for the combined cohort. Three primary questions directed this project: 1. What are the normal patterns of continuity and discontinuity in gambling and problem gambling behaviour? 2. What biopsychosocial variables and behaviour patterns are most predictive of current and future problem gambling? 3. What etiological model of problem gambling is best supported by the longitudinal findings? This report provides analyses of the adult sample and focuses primarily on the first two of the primary research questions above - specifically, on identifying variables that are robust predictors of future problem gambling onset, the stability of gambling problems over time, and the development of a multivariate model that illustrates the interaction of gambling behaviour and problem gambling over time. A tentative etiological model is also presented to address the last research question. The LLLP sample problem gambler prevalence at wave 1 was 4.7% (weighted prevalence 3.2%). A similar longitudinal study was conducted during the same time period in Ontario, namely the Quinte Longitudinal Study. A set of parallel analyses was conducted on the QLS dataset to identify findings that were robustly supported in both studies. The collective findings of the 8 LLLP and QLS studies represent the most comprehensive longitudinal analysis of gambling and problem gambling currently in the literature.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 découle