Notice bibliographique
Résumé
While commercial Indian gaming operations have sprung up only in past quarter century, many tribes have longstanding traditions involving games of chance. (159) Blackfeet tradition recounts how Na'pi (Old Man) brought tribe hoop and arrow game. ... [And how] Blackfeet continue play traditional betting (160) The Blackfeet are not alone, as many tribes have such traditional games. (161) Thus Indian gaming is, in many respects, a new expression of an ancient cultural practice. (162) A. The Early Years Legend has that commercial gaming on Indian reservations in United States began as a response a fire that destroyed two trailers on Oneida Indian reservation in Verona, New York, in 1975. (163) The reservation had neither a fire department nor firefighting equipment, and two oneidas perished in blaze. (164) To prevent such tragedies in future, Oneidas decided to raise money for [their] own fire department ... way all fire departments raise money ... [through b]ingo. (165) The Oneidas launched a bingo game in a double-wide trailer, offering prizes in excess of limits permitted by New York law. (166) The Oneidas maintained that, because they were an Indian nation, they were not bound by state bingo regulations. (167) Tribe members claimed that their right of sovereignty entitled them run their own game and offer a jackpot large enough draw non-Indians and their money-to a place they otherwise might never visit. (168) Subsequently, according one Oneida tribal member, the Seminoles got wind of it (169) and began their own high-stakes bingo game in Hollywood, Florida, in 1979. (170) The Seminole tribe contracted with a non-Indian organization build and manage its bingo hall. (171) The agreement called for managers receive 45% of profits after repayment of a $1 million construction loan. (172) The enterprise was a success, and Seminoles repaid loan in less than six months. (173) As tribal bingo operations grew more successful, states demanded a cut. (174) States unsuccessfully sought extend their laws over [tribal] lands ... prohibit, regulate, and/or tax tribal bingo operations. (175) Whereas district attorney in Madison County, New York, successfully shut down Oneidas' game, Seminoles fought state in courts when Florida authorities tried close Seminoles' bingo hall in 1981. (176) The Seminoles argued that Florida did not have authority prohibit gaming on their reservation, and Fifth Circuit agreed, (177) relying upon Bryan v. Itasca County, in which Supreme Court held that if a state regulates but does not prohibit an activity, may not prohibit that same activity in Indian Country under P.L. 280. (178) Thus, Seminoles secured right run their game and pay out unrestricted prizes. B. Gambling in Connecticut In 1971, Connecticut legalized gambling when, during a fiscal crisis, state government passed legislation sanctioning a state lottery, off-track betting, and horse racing. (179) In 1976, state legislature authorized betting on greyhound racing as well as jai alai, (180) and created a state-run, off-track betting system. (181) Despite state's efforts regulate gambling, Connecticut-based greyhound racing and jai alai operations soon were enmeshed in scandal, and reports of misconduct surfaced frequently. (182) In 1976, in response widespread corruption, state legislature imposed a one-year moratorium on provision of new gambling licenses. (183) Nonetheless, illegal activity continued plague Connecticut gambling. In 1979, government appointed a grand jury investigate betting irregularities at state's three jai alai frontons. (184) The probe led first arrests and convictions of players and bettors for fixing games in forty-five-year history of jai alai in United States. …
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,032 | 0,012 |
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 ».