MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037398283 · doi:10.1177/0743558403258272

Harm Reduction for the Prevention of Youth Gambling Problems

2004· article· en· W2037398283 on OpenAlexaff
Laurie Dickson, Jeffrey L. Derevensky, Rina Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescent Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarm reductionPsychologyPopularityHarmSubstance abuseConceptual frameworkPositive Youth DevelopmentPsychiatryPublic healthSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSociologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the growing popularity of the harm reduction approach in the field of adolescent alcohol and substance abuse, a harm reduction approach to prevention and treatment of youth problem gambling remains largely unexplored. This article poses the question of whether the harm reduction paradigm is a promising approach to the prevention of adolescent problem gambling and other risky behaviors. The authors use a universal, selective, and indicative prevention framework to present current prevention initiatives that have emerged from the harm reduction health paradigm for adolescent substance and alcohol abuse. The risk-protective factor model is used as a conceptual basis for designing youth problem gambling harm reduction prevention programs. This framework illustrates the developmental appropriateness of the harm reduction approach for youth. Implications drawn from this conceptual examination of harm reduction as a prevention approach to adolescent problem gambling provide valuable information for treatment providers as well.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.468
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.060 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adolescent ResearchSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207