Non-profits and gambling expansion : the British Columbia experience
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the historical influence of charitable and non-profit organizations in bringing about changes to the federal laws and provincial policies that have regulated gambling. The primary research questions that this study addresses include the following: Is there a discernable pattern in the perspectives held by non-profit organizations with respect to gambling policies and issues? Have some types of non-profit organizations been more active in lobbying federal or provincial governments for special considerations in charity gambling policy decisions? What preferences for particular forms of gambling (bingo, raffles, charity casinos) have non-profit organizations demonstrated? To what extent, if any, have provincial governments and Crown corporations justified gambling expansion as serving the interests of non-profit organizations? What relationships have emerged between regulators and the regulated (i.e., between provincial gaming regulatory authorities and non-profit/charitable organizations)? How have these relationships evolved? To what extent have non-profit organizations opposed gambling expansion, and for what reasons?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it