MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512220331 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2016.33.6

An Ecological Approach to Electronic Gambling Machines and Socioeconomic Deprivation in Germany

2016· article· en· W2512220331 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stergios Xouridas, Johannes Jasny, Tilman Becker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusUnemploymentHarmMarital statusContext (archaeology)DemographyDemographic economicsPopulationPsychologyUnemployment rateEcological studySocioeconomicsGeographySociologyEconomicsSocial psychologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Germany, gambling research has primarily focused on the broader population in prevalence studies, neglecting the importance and influence of the local socioeconomic context in the development and maintenance of gambling disorders. To analyze the interplay between contextual and compositional factors in the market for electronic gambling machines (EGMs) in Germany, we assessed the EGM densities and socioeconomic deprivation in 244 local communities within Baden-Wuerttemberg. Our results suggest that EGM density is statistically associated with 3 socioeconomic determinants: The shares of migrants, unemployed, and high-school-educated people in the communities are statistically significant variables in our linear regression model, whereas younger age, male gender, and marital status exhibit no statistical associations with EGM density. The share of unemployed people is the only variable of statistical and practical significance. Our analysis advocates area-based policy measures to minimize gambling-related harm. By decreasing EGM densities in communities with high levels of unemployment, we expect to protect at-risk population strata that are most vulnerable to gambling exposure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gambling IssuesSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207