Social service providers' perspectives on casino gambling in older adult clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been an upward trend in gambling, particularly among older adults. With the baby-boomer generation moving toward retirement, this trend is expected to increase. Availability and social acceptability of casinos in the United States are 2 of many precipitating factors for older adults' increased enthusiasm for gambling. Noticeably absent from the literature on casino gambling is the perspective of senior social service providers (SSSPs). The present study used a cross-sectional open-ended questionnaire completed by 88 SSSPs in Washington State. The purpose of this study was to describe the SSSPs' (a) perceptions of older adults' motivations to participate in casino gambling, (b) experience with older adults who have gambling problems, (c) views and knowledge of problem gambling, and (d) perception of the need for training on gambling problems. The most prevalent reasons cited for older adults to patronize casinos were the entertainment of gambling and the desire to win money. The least prevalent reasons included peer pressure, to learn new things, and for a public smoking environment. Many respondents (42.0%) felt that their clients were aware of the risks of casino gambling. However, almost one third (29.5%) reported that their clients were largely unaware of the risks. Almost all of the respondents (85.2%) reported they had not received any training regarding problem gambling. The findings indicate the need to educate SSSPs about the potential positive and negative consequences of casino gambling.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".