The prevention of pathological gambling: An annotated bibliography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevention of pathological gambling: An annotated bibliography Peter Ferentzy, Nigel E. Turner, & Wayne Skinner, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. E-mail: Nigel_Turner@camh.net The preparation of this annotated bibliography was guided by a desire to include all of the problem gambling research articles related to prevention that have been published in English. Some exceptions were made for articles published in other languages but for which an English abstract was available that provided sufficient details about the study. All studies were included, regardless of their methodological quality. In some cases, studies utilizing the same treated sample but providing additional results of the study were included. The annotations are brief and simply provide the reader with the full bibliographic reference, the basic approach that is evaluated in the study, and, when available, information about the results. No effort was made to critically appraise or review the study. Since the problem gambling research field is a growing area of inquiry, this bibliography will become quickly outdated and will require regular update to remain current. Prevention is a complex topic that must take into consideration the causes of the problems. As such we not only report papers evaluating prevention programs but also discuss papers that explore the causes of pathological gambling. These papers on prevention are divided into four categories: risk factors, programs, evaluations of programs, and conceptual issues and general information. Each paper was placed into the category that it best suited. 1. Risk factors Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission. (2002). Patterns of exposure to risk and protection for substance and gambling use and abuse: Alberta Youth Experience Survey 2002. Edmonton, AB: Author. The Alberta Youth Experience Survey of 2002 provides information on substance and gambling use and abuse among adolescents. The main focus was on risk and protective factors. Three types of prevention programs are discussed: (1) universal—promotes overall health and the prevention or delay of the onset of Page 1 of 50 JGI:Issue 17, August 2006.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.007 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".