Using Roadside Billboard Posters to Increase Admission Rates to Problem Gambling Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the stimulus-response model of advertising, this study sought to increase admission rates to a local problem gambling service (PGS) in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, by adding a series of locally based 10 foot by 20 foot roadside billboard posters to PGS's existing communications tools for a 24-week period. Using proof of performance reports, a pre-post survey of new callers to PGS, a website visit counter, and a media awareness survey, the findings showed that at least some individuals were influenced by billboard exposure, but admission rates continued to decline during the billboard campaign period. While one possible explanation for the communications failure was that the whole PGS communications campaign was below the minimal threshold for communications perception, another possible explanation is that the stimulus-response model of advertising used may not have been appropriate for such advertising that targets behavior change. Reflections on using an information-processing model instead of a stimulus-response model, and considerations of a two-step flow of communication, are provided. Recommendations are made regarding matching communications messages to stages of behavior change, use of online promotion, and strategies for future 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".