MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071416316 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2010.24.5

Online crime and internet gambling

2010· article· en· W2071416316 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetLaw enforcementInternet privacyEnforcementCriminologyBusinessPsychologyAdvertisingSociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spread of Internet gambling has raised several issues concerning motivations to gamble, consumer behaviour online, problem gambling, security of Web sites, and fairness and integrity of the games. Rather surprisingly, however, there has been little in the way of research regarding online crime and Internet gambling even though it is an urgent priority. This article addresses this absence by investigating the types, techniques, and organizational dynamics of online crime at the portals of Internet gambling sites. Our approach is qualitative in nature and explores, using document analysis, the activities of cybernomads, dot.con teams, and criminal networks. We demonstrate that there are different levels of criminal organization, distinguished by their complexity of division of labour; coordination of roles; purposefulness of association between criminals; and ability to avoid, evade, or neutralize security systems and law enforcement. We conclude by arguing that conventional understandings of real-world gambling-related criminal relationships have been altered by the digital environment of the Internet.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.273 · 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