MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078297960 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2008.21.19

Gambling for local authorities: Licensing, planning, and regeneration

2008· article· en· W2078297960 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Miers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicOccupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYLegislationLawDelegationHeading (navigation)Set (abstract data type)Political scienceInclusion (mineral)SociologyLaw and economicsEngineeringComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“The modest objective of this book is to provide a clear explanation of the law relating to the licensing and planning control of gambling clearly and succinctly, principally as it relates to local authorities” (p. ix). This objective is admirably achieved; in the words of a well-known U.K. advertisement, it “does exactly what it says on the tin” (Ronseal Ltd.). The book comprises 28 chapters, 22 of which fall within the seven parts grouped under the heading “The Gambling Act 2005.” The eighth part, “Planning and Regeneration,” comprises the final six chapters. The book’s clarity stems not only from its structure but from its inclusion, in each chapter, of short paragraphs summarizing points of law pertinent to that chapter. A number of helpful charts (e.g., chapters 1, 11, and 19) also contribute to the book’s clarity. In addition to the specific duties set out in the Gambling Act, the book also deals with those duties that arise under the planning legislation and under the general law concerning the delegation of functions and proper decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.105 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gambling IssuesSame topicOccupational and Professional Licensing RegulationFrench-language works237,207