Lottery participation by youth with gambling problems: are lottery tickets a gateway to other gambling venues?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".