MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550935832 · doi:10.1177/0891988716673468

Problem Gambling in a Sample of Older Adult Casino Gamblers

2016· article· en· W2550935832 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark van der Maas, Robert E. Mann, John McCready, Flora I. Matheson, Nigel E. Turner, Hayley A. Hamilton, Tracy Schrans, Anca Ialomiteanu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySample (material)Logistic regressionMental healthPopulationGerontologyLeisure activityPsychiatrySocial psychologyDemographyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As older adults continue to make up a greater proportion of the Canadian population, it becomes more important to understand the implications that their leisure activities have for their physical and mental health. Gambling, in particular, is a form of leisure that is becoming more widely available and has important implications for the mental health and financial well-being of older adults. This study examines a large sample (2103) of casino-going Ontarian adults over the age of 55 and identifies those features of their gambling participation that are associated with problem gambling. Logistic regression analysis is used to analyze the data. Focusing on types of gambling participated in and motivations for visiting the casino, this study finds that several forms of gambling and motivations to gamble are associated with greater risk of problem gambling. It also finds that some motivations are associated with lower risk of problem gambling. The findings of this study have implications related to gambling availability within an aging population.

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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geriatric Psychiatry and NeurologySame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207