MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178721134 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2015.30.10

From problem gambling to crime? Findings from the Finnish National Police Information System

2015· article· en· W2178721134 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kalle Lind, Juha Kääriäinen, Sanna‐Mari Kuoppamäki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminologyPsychologyDark figure of crimeProperty crimeViolent crime

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In previous studies, problem gambling was found to have many adverse consequences, including crime. However, links between crime and problem gambling have been studied relatively little. To fill this gap, we collected problem gambling-related police reports from the Finnish National Police Information System. Fifty-five problem gambling-related crime incidents reported to the police 2011 in Finland were subjected to qualitative analysis. The role of problem gambling, as self-identified by the gamblers themselves, was examined as highlighted in different crime reports: what common features did the gamblers share, and what were the possible causal mechanisms between problem gambling and crime? The data consisted of text documents produced by the police, specifically crime reports and preliminary investigation documents. Collected documents were coded using Weft QDA and SPSS. Grounded theory approach was applied. The majority of the cases were non-violent property crimes, committed at home or at the workplace. We determined that problem gambling, through financial difficulties, does indeed lead to crime.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.274
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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