Physical accessibility of gaming opportunity and its relationship to gaming involvement and problem gambling: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the findings of a systematic search undertaken for the period January 1990 to June 2011 of references including original, empirical findings of the relationship between accessibility of electronic gaming machines and rates of gambling involvement, problem gambling, or gambling-related treatment seeking. Titles and abstracts of 2156 references were reviewed, yielding 39 references meeting inclusion criteria. The review has revealed that the relationships between the physical accessibility dimensions of proximity and density and gambling involvement and problem gambling are complex. Research is only beginning to elucidate these dimensions, and many questions and methodological challenges remain to be addressed. The strengths, limitations, and gaps in the literature are discussed, and recommendations are made for future research. Cet article présente les résultats d'une recherche documentaire systématique, effectuée entre janvier 1990 et juin 2011, incluant des résultats empiriques initiaux qui portaient sur la relation entre l'accessibilité aux appareils de jeu électroniques et les taux de participation au jeu, le jeu compulsif ou la recherche de traitement lié au jeu. On a étudié les titres et les résumés de 2 156 références, parmi lesquelles 39 correspondaient aux critères d'inclusion. Cette recherche a révélé la complexité des relations entre les dimensions d'accessibilité physique, c'est-à-dire la proximité et la densité d'une part, et la participation au jeu et le jeu compulsif d'autre part. La recherche commence à peine à élucider ces dimensions et de nombreuses questions et problèmes méthodologiques demeurent en suspens. L'article discute des forces, des limitations et des lacunes de la littérature spécialisée et formule des recommandations pour de futurs travaux de recherche.
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 | 0.011 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".