MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116706156 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2006.16.18

Characteristics of people seeking treatment for problem gambling in Ontario: Trends from 1998 to 2002

2006· article· en· W2116706156 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Karen Urbanoski, Brian Rush

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPopulationDemographyFiscal yearBusinessSociologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report summarizes the characteristics of individuals who sought help within Ontario's specialized problem gambling treatment system during its first four years of operation. All clients recorded in the provincial information system database as having entered a gambling treatment program between April 1, 1998, and March 31, 2002, are included. Broad trends and gender differences in demographic characteristics, gambling behaviours, and problem severity are considered and compared by fiscal year. Compared to population-based estimates of problem gambling, the number of clients served by this specialized treatment system is low but steadily increasing. Women have consistently made up approximately one third of clients entering treatment in each fiscal year, and their sociodemographic profile, their gaming preferences, and the duration of their problem gambling careers differ from those of male clients. The growing proportion of clients of both genders seeking help for problems related to slot machines is of primary concern and warrants further study.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gambling IssuesSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207