Online Poker Gambling Among University Students: Risky Endeavour or Harmless Pastime?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to describe online poker gambling patterns and associated problems in a representative sample of university students. The study sample consisted of 366 past-year online and offline poker gamblers and was drawn from a larger survey sample of full-time undergraduate students (N=2,139) randomly selected across four university campuses in Montreal, Canada. The questionnaire included self-reported measures of poker gambling patterns and problems, negative consequences of gambling, drinking problems, and illicit drug use. Online poker was found to be associated with problem gambling, over-spending and debt, as well as problems with university studies, interpersonal relationships, and illicit drug use. Given the propensity of university students to adopt risky behaviours, on-campus prevention programs are warranted in the midst of the online poker craze, especially given that online gambling remains unregulated. Detection tools should be available for students to recognize critical shifts in their gambling habits from a leisure activity to a risky endeavour.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it