MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064110714 · doi:10.1080/14459790412331296956

Lottery participation by youth with gambling problems: are lottery tickets a gateway to other gambling venues?

2004· article· en· W2064110714 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer R. Felsher, Jeffrey L. Derevensky, Rina Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Gambling Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLotteryPsychologyPreferenceAddictionAdvertisingGambling disorderSocial psychologyPsychiatryBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present study was to investigate the types of gambling activities youths with gambling problems participate in and whether the lottery is a key gambling venue for these young people. Secondly, we sought to ascertain whether youths with gambling problems display similar gambling behaviour with lottery tickets as those addicted to traditional forms of gambling. Participants were 1,072 young people, 10-18 years of age, in Ontario, Canada. Youths with gambling problems reported having a preference for lottery tickets compared to other forms of gambling. Differences were found for the frequency with which probable pathological gamblers reported going to the store specifically to purchase lottery tickets. Furthermore, probable pathological gamblers reported chasing their losses after having played the lottery more than the other gambling groups. This research demonstrates that youths with gambling problems gamble primarily with lottery products and exhibit similar pathological gambling behaviour (e.g., chasing) as those individuals addicted to other forms of gambling venues. Furthermore, the results suggest that lottery tickets are a potentially addictive activity that introduces youth to the exciting properties of 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.210
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations46
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Gambling StudiesSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207