MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037704146 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2011-0005

Developing a Population Health Framework for Studying Problem Gambling

2011· article· en· W2037704146 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Tracie O. Afifi, Brian J. Cox, Patricia J. Martens, Jitender Sareen, Murray W. Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsManitoba HealthUniversity of Manitoba
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychosocialPublic healthMental healthPsychologyPopulationAssociation (psychology)Conceptual modelConceptual frameworkPsychiatryGerontologyEnvironmental healthSociologyMedicineSocial scienceComputer sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research has shown that the expansion of gambling is an important public health concern and a public health approach should be applied to study problem gambling (Canadian Public Health Association, 2000; Korn, 2000; Korn & Shaffer, 1999). However, such an approach is underutilized. Therefore, a conceptual framework was developed to study problem gambling (or pathological gambling) based on Evans and Stoddart's (1990) popular population health model. This framework can be used to identify psychosocial/social, genetic, and environmental correlates of problem gambling and important relationships between problem gambling and health and functioning, mental and physical health conditions, and help-seeking behaviours.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.463
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.024 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207