How to gamble: Information and misinformation in books and other media on gambling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently a large number of books, videocassettes and computer programs are available to teach people how to gamble. This article is an examination of this wealth of information. The paper begins by describing the number and types of materials on how to gamble available in an online catalogue and in libraries and bookstores (Study One). The paper then turns the discussion to an examination of the accurate and inaccurate information found in a sample of these materials (Study Two). The studies found that the majority of the material available was on skilled games, but a sizeable number of materials on non-skilled games were also found. The quality of these materials ranged from pure nonsense to accurate. The best materials found were in books on gambling in general and in materials on how to play poker. This paper includes a catalogue of the accurate and inaccurate information found in the books as well as a series of reviews on a number of books, Web sites and other gambling-related material.
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 | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".