Harmful alcohol use and frequent use of marijuana among lifetime problem gamblers and the prevalence of cross-addictive behaviour among Greenland Inuit: evidence from the cross-sectional Inuit health in transition Greenland survey 2006–2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Public health research has pointed to alcohol and substance abuse as the most significant public health challenges in Greenland with the negative impact on families and communities that entail, but few studies have investigated the role of problem gambling as addictive behaviour among Inuit. The objectives of the present study were to investigate (a) the association between lifetime problem gambling and harmful alcohol use as well as frequent use of marijuana and (b) the prevalence of cross-addictive behaviour among Greenland Inuit. DESIGN: A representative cross-sectional study among Greenland Inuit (n=2,189). Data was collected among adults (18+) in 8 towns and 13 villages in Greenland from 2006-2010. Lifetime problem gambling, harmful alcohol use and frequent use of marijuana were measured through a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: The odds ratio for harmful alcohol use and frequent use of marijuana was significantly higher among lifetime problem gamblers compared to non-problem gamblers/non-gamblers. One or more addictive behaviours were present among more than half of the men (53%) and one third of the women (37%), and the co-occurrence of lifetime problem gambling with either harmful alcohol use, frequent use of marijuana or both was found among 12.2% of men and 3.7% of women. The prevalence of one or more addictive behaviours was 44% in households with children. CONCLUSIONS: For lifetime problem gamblers, the gambling problems were more often than not combined with harmful alcohol use, frequent use of marijuana or both--especially among men. The high prevalence of addictive behaviours in households with children indicates that many families are presently affected negatively by alcohol, gambling and marijuana. This suggests that pathological gambling should be included systematically in future public health strategies, treatment programs and interventions in Greenland.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".