MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549141567 · doi:10.1007/s11469-016-9721-z

Teacher Awareness and Attitudes Regarding Adolescent Risk Behaviours: a Sample of Finnish Middle and High School Teachers

2016· article· en· W2549141567 on OpenAlexaff
Sari Castrén, Caroline E. Temcheff, Jeffrey L. Derevensky, Kim Josefsson, Hannu Alho, Anne H. Salonen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersHelsingin Yliopisto
KeywordsPsychologyHealth psychologySample (material)LegislatureEmpirical evidenceSchool teachersDevelopmental psychologyPublic healthPedagogyMedicineNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical evidence has shown that youth gamble on both regulated and unregulated games, despite legislative prohibitions. This study assesses middle and high school teachers' awareness and attitudes regarding adolescent gambling and other potentially high-risk behaviours in Finland. A convenience sample of teachers (N = 157) from 13 provinces participated in the survey. The results suggest that teachers in Finland were more knowledgeable of the age limits of other adolescent high-risk behaviours than the legal age for gambling. Teachers were somewhat familiar with the behaviours and consequences associated with adolescent gambling. All other risk behaviours were perceived as being more important than gambling. Teachers' awareness about gambling prevention material in Finnish schools was limited. Results suggest that initiatives are required to enhance teachers' knowledge of adolescent problem gambling and its harmful short-and long-term consequences. School policies and guidelines including gambling behavior should be implemented in middle and high schools globally.

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)0.000
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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations55
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mental Health and AddictionSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207