MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2273713678

Problem Gamblers Pose Problems for Casinos: A Roundtable Discussion

2010· article· en· W2273713678 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emir Crowne

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligationSubject (documents)NicePolitical scienceLawLaw and economicsEconomicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What, if any, obligation does a gaming venue have to a problem gambler who has signed a self-exclusion form promising not to gamble again? Are such promises nice efforts but, ultimately, unenforceable documents? Gaming Law Review and Economics gathered a group of lawyers and other experts from the United States and Canada to talk about the current status of the law on this subject and whether, and how, it should change.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.016
Scholarly communication0.0140.027
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0590.042
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicGambling Behavior and Treatments→French-language works237,207→