Links between casino proximity and gambling participation, expenditure, and pathology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies investigated the relationship between casino proximity and gambling participation, expenditure, and pathology. In Study 1, 8,842 participants were categorized into 1 of 4 driving distances from their home to the nearest casino in the province of Quebec: 0-100 km, 100.01-200 km, 200.01-300 km, or 300.01-981 km. In Study 2, 5,158 participants, who lived within a 100-km driving distance from the Montreal casino, were classified into 1 of 5 equidistant, 20-km driving distances. A survey company interviewed participants regarding their gambling habits. Results indicated a positive link between casino proximity and gambling participation (at the provincial and Montreal levels) and expenditure (at the provincial level only) but no link with the current prevalence rate of probable pathological gambling or of problem gambling. In a setting in which many types of gambling activities are available, casino proximity in itself does not appear to explain the rate of gambling-related problems. It is necessary to continue prospective research on exposure and adaptation theories as potential explanations for the development of pathological gambling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".