Trends in Gambling Behavior among College Student-Athletes: A Comparison of 2004 and 2008 NCAA Survey Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two large samples of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) student-athletes in 2004 (N = 18,916) and 2008 (N = 17,675) were surveyed about their gambling behavior. A cross-comparison highlighted gambling trends among college-student athletes across the four-year span. Overall, past-year and weekly gambling rates were lower in 2008 compared to 2004. There were no within-gender differences in the proportion of individuals at-risk or meeting criteria for a gambling problem between 2004 (4.0% males, 0.3% females) and 2008 (3.8% males, 0.4% females). Participation rates were higher in 2004 for all gambling activities, except for past-year Internet gambling and sports wagering, which increased in 2008 among males. Across sports, gambling participation was notably highest among golfers of both genders. Collectively, the results suggest that gambling activity among student-athletes is on a downward trend in spite of ongoing expansion of gambling opportunities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".