A National Study on Gambling Among US College Student-Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the national prevalence of gambling problems and sports wagering among US college student-athletes. PARTICIPANTS: A national sample of 20,739 student-athletes participated in the study. METHODS: The authors used data from the first national survey of gambling among college athletes, conducted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association. RESULTS: Men (62.4%) consistently had higher past-year prevalence of gambling than did women (42.8%). The authors identified 4.3% of men and 0.4% of women as problem or pathological gamblers. Among the most popular forms of gambling were playing cards, lotteries, and games of skill, with male-to-female prevalence ratio ranging 1.3-5.6 across various gambling activities. Athletes in golf and lacrosse were more likely to report sports wagering than were other athletes. Athletes in gender-specific sports wagered more prevalently than did athletes in unisex sports. CONCLUSION: Gambling prevalence may be underestimated in this population because respondents' athletics eligibility is at stake. This study provides important baseline data for future cohorts of athletes.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".