MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157855473 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2008.22.7

Impact of gambling advertisements and marketing on children and adolescents: Policy recommendations to minimise harm

2008· article· en· W2157855473 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sally Monaghan, Jeffrey L. Derevensky, Alyssa Sklar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmAdvertisingAppealAffect (linguistics)BusinessPsychologyMarketingPolitical scienceSocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the proliferation and acceptance of gambling in society, gambling advertisements have become increasingly prominent. Despite attempts to protect minors from harm by prohibiting them from engaging in most forms of gambling, there are few restrictions on the marketing of gambling products. Evidence of high rates of gambling and associated problems amongst youth indicates that the issue of youth gambling must be addressed to minimise harm. This paper aims to examine the current marketing techniques used to promote gambling and how they affect youth. The effect of multiple forms of advertisements will be discussed, including advertising placement in the media, point-of-sale displays, sports sponsorship, promotional products, celebrity endorsements, advertisements using Internet and wireless technology, and content which may appeal to or mislead children. Based on research in gambling and other public health domains, including tobacco, alcohol, and junk food advertising, recommendations are made for appropriate regulations for gambling advertisements to minimise the potential harms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0290.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.004

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations155
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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