A review of the gambling literature in the economic and policy domains
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
The Alberta Gaming Research Institute commissioned this literature review of the economics of gambling and government and industry gambling policy and practice. The review is designed to accomplish the following objectives: 1. To identify scholarly articles in academic journals, texts, and conference proceedings pertaining to (a) the economics of gambling, and (b) public and private sector gambling policy and practice. 2. To compile an electronic database to store the citations and, where available, the annotations of the identified references. 3. To provide a summary report that discusses the identified literature and highlights the contributions of Albertans to this field of endeavor. 4. To begin the process of generating interest and building capacity to conduct gambling-related research within the Alberta Gaming Research Institute. To complement this review of the scholarly literature, Dr. Peter Bowal and his University of Calgary colleague’s conducted a separate review and analysis of legal and government documents in the gambling policy domain. The results of the Bowal review are contained in a separate report.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it