Youth gambling behaviors: An examination of the role of resilience.
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 study of resilient children has overturned many deficit-focused models concerning the ontogenesis of children raised in adversity. This study explored the relationship between risk and protective factors, resilience, and youth gambling behavior. More specifically, this study examined the relative contribution of various risk and protective domains in relation to problem gambling behavior and examined whether youth identified as resilient (high risk exposure-high internalized protection) were as likely as those identified as vulnerable (high risk exposure-low internalized protection) to engage in excessive gambling behavior. The sample consisted of 1,273 students ages 12 to 19. The findings demonstrated that risk and protective factors each provide a unique contribution to the prediction model of gambling problems. Resilient and vulnerable youth differed significantly in their self-reported gambling severity. As well, resilient youth were not statistically distinguishable from low-risk exposure groups in terms of their gambling severity. Findings are interpreted with respect to resilience and prevention research.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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