MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Proportion of Gaming Revenue Derived from Problem Gamblers: Examining the Issues in a Canadian Context

2004· article· en· W2126693563 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalyses of Social Issues and Public Policy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)LegitimacyGovernment revenuePublic economicsPsychologyDemographic economicsSocial psychologyAdvertisingBusinessMarketingEconomicsPolitical scienceGeographyFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The legitimacy of government‐sponsored gambling and its continued expansion depends in part on the impact that gambling has on society and the extent to which gambling revenue is derived from vulnerable individuals. The purpose of the present article is to try to establish a valid estimate of the proportion of gaming revenue derived from problem gamblers in Canada. Using recent secondary data collected in eight Canadian provinces, we estimate this proportion to be 23.1%, compared to a problem gambling prevalence rate of 4.2%. This estimate must be seen as tentative, however, as self‐reported expenditures are 2.1 times higher than actual provincial gaming revenues.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.302 · 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