MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123811375 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2006.16.6

Gender differences in problem gambling behaviour from help-line callers

2006· article· en· W2123811375 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jill Heater, David Patton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLotteryDemographicsPsychologyDemographySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The province of Manitoba, Canada, has operated a province-wide Problem Gambling Help-Line 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, since 1993. The present study looked at gender differences in a sample of help-line callers. A total of 97 callers (59 men and 38 women) were asked 34 questions. The results showed both similarities and differences among men and women. The most popular gambling activity for all callers was video lottery terminals (71%). Male and female callers had similar background demographics and had both experienced numerous financial, relationship, and work problems as a result of their gambling. Some gender differences were found. Female callers reported a shorter duration of their gambling problem compared to male callers. Higher numbers of men than women gambled in bars, hotels, and restaurants. Overall, the results contribute to an understanding of gender differences in problem gambling.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.294
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.136 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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