MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277531366 · doi:10.11575/prism/9868

Casino patrons, travel behaviour, place attachment, and motivations : a study of Alberta residents : final report

2003· article· en· W2277531366 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tom Hinch, Gordon Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlace attachmentAdvertisingMarketingBusinessPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is guided by the question of what role "place or destination" plays in the behaviour of Alberta residents who visit casinos on their travels. More specifically, the study is designed to: (1) identify the casino related travel behaviour of Alberta residents, (2) examine the importance of place attachment and mode of experience in relation to casino patronage by Alberta residents, and (3) discover the motivations of these casino gamblers. The data were collected through the Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system operated by the Population Research Laboratory (PRL) at the University of Alberta. The final data base consisted of 1203 Alberta respondents with 602 of these being individuals who had visited a casino 80km or more from their home in the past 12 months (i.e., travelers) and the balance of whom had visited a casino less than 80km or more from their home in the past 12 months (i.e., locals).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207