MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The role of family, religiosity, and behavior in adolescent gambling

2011· article· en· W2066047242 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReligiosityPsychologyBiopsychosocial modelLogistic regressionDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predictors of adolescent gambling behavior were examined in a sample of 436 males and females (ages 13-16). A biopsychosocial model was used to identify key variables that differentiate between non-gambling and gambling adolescents. Logistic regression found that, as compared to adolescent male non-gamblers, adolescent male gamblers were older, had more conflict in their family, were more likely to have used drugs, and have peers that gamble. Compared to adolescent female non-gamblers, adolescent female gamblers had more attention and thought problems, and scored higher on rule-breaking. For both males and females, religiosity was a protective factor against involvement in gambling. Some of the results are consistent with previous research, while some of these findings are unique to this study. These results shed light on factors to consider when developing programs to combat the negative impacts of gambling on adolescents.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.244 · 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