MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2606042596 · doi:10.5539/ass.v13n5p136

Gambling Consumers in Thailand

2017· article· en· W2606042596 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pannapa Changpetch

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHousehold incomeConsumption (sociology)Alcohol consumptionSocioeconomicsEconomicsWork (physics)Demographic economicsGeographyAlcoholSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a study of household gambling consumption in Thailand in 2011. We investigate the nonlinear relationships between this behavior and household alcohol expenditure, household gambling expenditure, and demographic factors. We use Treenet to analyze datasets drawn from a socio-economic survey of 42,083 Thai households conducted in 2011. The results show that the five most significant variables in order of importance for predicting the likelihood of household gambling consumption are household income, household region, work status of the household head, religion of the household head, and age of the household head. In summary, the Treenet results suggest that the likelihood of gambling consumption was higher for households with an income of more than 25,000 Bahts per year, a location in the North, a Buddhist head of household, a head with active work status, a head between 35 and 55 years old, with household expenditure spent on alcohol consumed at home of more than 500 Bahts, with household expenditure spent on tobacco of more than 100 Bahts, and a head of household with less education.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social Science→Same topicGambling Behavior and Treatments→French-language works237,207→