Proceedings of the Interprovincial Think Tank of Youth and Gambling : October 21-22, 1999, Winnipeg, Manitoba
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Like the three interprovincial conferences before it, the Interprovincial Think Tank (IT) was rooted in the need to enhance understanding of gambling and problem gambling as it relates to the day-to-day work and personal experiences of Think Tank participants. From the beginning, our collective mandate has been to address problem gambling, and in doing so we have created opportunities to do two important things: share our knowledge and experiences; and broaden the base of understanding in the wider community. During this process, we have learned from each other as well as from the community at large. This ITT was a continuation of the exchange and the learning. For this Think Tank, the Planning Committee set i t s sites on the topic of youth and gambling. The need to explore this topic stems from three key realities. First, there is a public, political and interest-group expectation that the needs of youth be addressed in the context of problem gambling. Second, while prevalence data exist, there is uncertainty among those working in the problem gambling area about the meaning of the data. And third, uncertainty also exists around the importance of problem gambling as an issue for youth and of youth gambling as an issue for society. The proceedings of this ITT were not developed as a "blueprint for action." Rather, they are intended to provide information that will guide people as they work in their communities and collaboratively develop plans to address youth and problem gambling issues. As the reader will see, these proceedings accomplish this goal. They reveal the richness and diversity in the details that emerged as participants expressed their views and described their experiences in response to the discussion questions. While several themes around the topic of youth and gambling became defined, it was the diversity of the participants' perspectives that drove the conference towards its conclusion: no single formula can be presented to address the youth gambling issue across different communities. Instead, communities need to implement the strategies and approaches that make sense for them. The information garnered from this Think Tank will help to guide discussion and action across the country towards this end. It is evident that this Think Tank and the previous conferences have laid a strong foundation for continuing the country-wide exchange on problem gambling. The committee expresses its gratitude to the sponsors of this event as well as to all participants. The Think Tank would not have been the success it was without the energy, sense of humour and candidness of all those who took part.
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 | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,067 | 0,011 |
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 ».