Using Roadside Billboard Posters to Increase Admission Rates to Problem Gambling Services
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it