Are Canadian First Nations Casinos Providing Maximum Benefits? Appraising First Nations Casinos in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, 2006-2010(1)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractTo date a dearth of data has made it difficult to evaluate the success of First Nations casinos in Canada. This paper helps remedy this situation by presenting a three-province overview (Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta) of First Nations gaming models. Two key findings are offered that First Nations seeking gaming market entry and provincial officials should genuinely consider. First, while each province has adopted a unique approach to First Nations gaming policy they have each opted to direct substantial revenues out of First Nations communities and into their own treasuries. Second, the evidence suggests that larger gaming properties located nearby a significant market provide more benefits versus smaller properties situated in more isolated areas. The subsequent discussion elaborates each provincial model's revenue generating power, how the revenue in question is being allocated and its corresponding socio-economic impact, whether increased problem gambling and crime have resulted as predicted, while exploring employment trends to determine whether they have developed as anticipated.IntroductionEvaluating the impact of First Nations casinos in Canada has been hampered by a lack of data (cf Cornell, 2008).2 First Nations leaders in several provinces are nevertheless considering investing in reserve casino expansion. There are currently 17 First Nations casinos operating nationally in B.C. (1), Alberta (5), Saskatchewan (6), Manitoba (2) and Ontario (1 for profit; 2 charity). Initially touted as revenue generators that would employ large numbers of Aboriginal employees thus increasing community benefits, provincial premiers in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta echoed the First Nation leadership's positive testimonials to likewise champion reserve casino expansion as a means of improving local First Nations development potential and well-being. Each provincial government chose, however, to execute policies prescribing revenue distribution formulas, restrictions on casino site construction, while most importantly directing casino revenues purportedly earmarked for First Nations communities into provincial treasuries. Despite these setbacks, First Nations leaders in each province remain confident in the reserve casino's potential. Aside from assenting, anecdotal declarations, modest efforts have been directed at exploring each model's exigencies in comparative perspective. This paper represents the first multi-province evaluation of First Nations casinos in Canada and assesses the Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta First Nations gaming models to determine whether First Nations casinos are providing maximum benefits.3 In particular, the following discussion evaluates the three provincial gaming models' revenue generating power, how the revenue is being allocated and its corresponding socio-economic impact, whether increased problem gambling and crime have resulted as projected, while exploring employment trends to determine their impact. This paper unfolds as follows. After a literature review an overview of each provincial First Nations gaming policy is provided followed by a quantitative analysis exploring the aforementioned subjects, and the conclusions.Literature ReviewUnited States Indian nations started utilizing reservation casinos as an economic stimulus in the 1980s. Described as islands of poverty in a sea of wealth (Anderson & Parker, 2008, p. 641), as one researcher has noted, reservation communities [w]ith little or no economy or tax base to fund essential services ... turned to gaming, through self-determination, to generate government revenue needed to fund these services and provide employment for tribal (Schaap, 2010, p. 381). By 2002, over half of all tribal members living in the contiguous 48 states belonged to casino-operating tribes (Evans & Topoleski, 2003) and, in 2008, Indian gaming revenues topped $26.7 billion with 233 Indian tribes operating 411 casinos, bingo halls, and pull-tab operations in 28 states (NIGA, 2009). …
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) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 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 ».