Proceedings of the Interprovincial Think Tank of Youth and Gambling : October 21-22, 1999, Winnipeg, Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like the three interprovincial conferences before it, the Interprovincial Think Tank (IT) was rooted in the need to enhance understanding of gambling and problem gambling as it relates to the day-to-day work and personal experiences of Think Tank participants. From the beginning, our collective mandate has been to address problem gambling, and in doing so we have created opportunities to do two important things: share our knowledge and experiences; and broaden the base of understanding in the wider community. During this process, we have learned from each other as well as from the community at large. This ITT was a continuation of the exchange and the learning. For this Think Tank, the Planning Committee set i t s sites on the topic of youth and gambling. The need to explore this topic stems from three key realities. First, there is a public, political and interest-group expectation that the needs of youth be addressed in the context of problem gambling. Second, while prevalence data exist, there is uncertainty among those working in the problem gambling area about the meaning of the data. And third, uncertainty also exists around the importance of problem gambling as an issue for youth and of youth gambling as an issue for society. The proceedings of this ITT were not developed as a "blueprint for action." Rather, they are intended to provide information that will guide people as they work in their communities and collaboratively develop plans to address youth and problem gambling issues. As the reader will see, these proceedings accomplish this goal. They reveal the richness and diversity in the details that emerged as participants expressed their views and described their experiences in response to the discussion questions. While several themes around the topic of youth and gambling became defined, it was the diversity of the participants' perspectives that drove the conference towards its conclusion: no single formula can be presented to address the youth gambling issue across different communities. Instead, communities need to implement the strategies and approaches that make sense for them. The information garnered from this Think Tank will help to guide discussion and action across the country towards this end. It is evident that this Think Tank and the previous conferences have laid a strong foundation for continuing the country-wide exchange on problem gambling. The committee expresses its gratitude to the sponsors of this event as well as to all participants. The Think Tank would not have been the success it was without the energy, sense of humour and candidness of all those who took part.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.011 |
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".