MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gambling and Related Mental Disorders: A Public Health Analysis

2002· review· en· W2117228484 on OpenAlexaff
Howard J. Shaffer, David Korn

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Public Health · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthMental healthPerspective (graphical)EpidemiologyPsychiatryPsychologyEnvironmental healthMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews the prevalence of gambling and related mental disorders from a public health perspective. It traces the expansion of gambling in North America and the psychological, economic, and social consequences for the public's health, and then considers both the costs and benefits of gambling and the history of gambling prevalence research. A public health approach is applied to understanding the epidemiology of gambling-related problems. International prevalence rates are provided and the prevalence of mental disorders that often are comorbid with gambling problems is reviewed. Analysis includes an examination of groups vulnerable to gambling-related disorders and the methodological and conceptual matters that might influence epidemiological research and prevalence rates related to gambling. The major public health problems associated with gambling are considered and recommendations made for public health policy, practice, and research. The enduring value of a public health perspective is that it applies different 'lenses' for understanding gambling behaviour, analysing its benefits and costs, as well as identifying strategies for action. Harvey A. Skinner (160, p. 286)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.315
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations537
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Public HealthSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207