Prevalence estimates of gambling and problem gambling among 13- to 15-year-old adolescents in Reykjavík: An examination of correlates of problem gambling and different accessibility to electronic gambling machines in Iceland
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 paper reports the main findings from a prevalence study of adolescent gambling and problem gambling among Icelandic adolescents. The final sample consisted of 3,511 pupils aged 13 to 15 in 25 primary schools in Reykjavík. The results indicated that 93% of adolescents had gambled some time in their life and 70% at least once in the preceding year. Problem gambling prevalence rates were evaluated with two gambling screens, American Psychological Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition, Multiple-Response-Junior (DSM-IV-MR-J) and the South Oaks Gambling Screen Revised for Adolescents (SOGS-RA). The DSM-IV-MR-J identified 1.9% as problem gamblers, while SOGS-RA identified 2.8% as problem gamblers. The results also showed that problem gamblers reported more difficulties in school and used alcohol and other drugs more frequently than adolescents who gambled socially or not at all. Finally, evaluation of electronic gambling machine (EGM) accessibility revealed that gambling on low-stakes EGMs in public places was more common than on EGMs in arcades or bars and restaurants. The potential implications of these findings are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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