Risk, compensatory, protective, and vulnerability factors related to youth gambling problems.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the additive (i.e., risk or compensatory) or moderating (i.e., protective or exacerbating) role of individual resources (social bonding, personal competence, and social competence) and environmental risk (family, peers, and neighborhood) in regard to the association between established personal risk attributes (i.e., impulsivity, anxiety) and youth gambling problems. Using a cross-sectional design, regression analyses indicated that among a sample of mostly first-generation immigrant adolescents from low-income homes (N = 1,055; M = 15.03; SD = 1.64), social bonding was associated with a decrease in gambling problems (odds ratio [OR] = 0.15, p < .01) while peer and neighborhood risk were associated with an increase in gambling problems (OR = 2.24, p = .01 and OR = 2.31, p = .01, respectively), net of personal risk attributes. In terms of protective processes, no putative moderating effect was found for composite individual resources. The findings are discussed with respect to the roles of compensatory, risk, and protective processes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".