MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283615732

Gambling, youth and the internet: should we be concerned?

2004· article· en· W2283615732 on OpenAlexaff
Carmen Messerlian, Andrea M. Byrne, Jeffrey L. Derevensky

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetPsychologyPublic relationsCriminologyInternet privacyAdvertisingPolitical scienceBusinessComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The recent growth of gambling problems among youth around the world is alarming. Researchers, clinicians, educators and the public have only begun to recognize the significance of this risky adolescent behaviour. With the continuous rise in gambling technology and the expansion of the gambling industry, more gambling opportunities exist today than ever before. METHOD: The literature on gambling and youth was reviewed. RESULTS: Given the greater accessibility, availability, and promotion of gambling, more and more youth have become attracted to the perceived excitement, entertainment, and financial freedom associated with gambling. While Internet gambling is a recent phenomenon that remains to be explored, the potential for future problems among youth is high, especially among a generation of young people who have grown up with videogames, computers, and the Internet. CONCLUSION: Our current knowledge and understanding of the seriousness of gambling problems, its magnitude, and its impact on the health and well-being of children and youth compels us to respond to these new forms of gambling in a timely and effective manner.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.275
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.097 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations62
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207