A free ride? An analysis of the association of casino bus tours and problem gambling among older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and aims Little research has examined the relationship between incentives used by gambling venues to attract customers and the experience of gambling‐related harm. Organized and subsidized bus tours are a common example of such incentives. The aim of this study was to examine whether bus‐tour patronage was associated with increased odds of problem gambling among older adults. This study also compared rates of bus‐tour use by socio‐demographic characteristics and gambling behaviours. Design Pearson's χ2tests and Mann–WhitneyU‐tests were applied for bivariate analyses. Multivariate generalized mixed‐effects regression modelling was used to examine the relationship between bus‐tour patronage and problem gambling while controlling for possible confounding factors. Setting Seven gambling venues located in Central and Southwestern Ontario, Canada. Participants A total of 1978 gambling venue patrons over the age of 55 years. Measurements Problem gambling as indicated by the Problem Gambling Severity Index, bus‐tour patronage in the 12 months prior to the survey, spending per gambling visit and past‐month slot machine participation. Findings Regression analyses showed that bus‐tour patronage was associated with higher odds of problem gambling [odds ratio (OR) = 1.71, confidence interval (CI) = 1.06, 2.76] after controlling for several demographic characteristics, type of gambling and gambling expenditures. Bivariate analyses showed past‐year bus‐tour patronage was associated with more frequent slot machine play (χ2= 48.16,P < 0.001), more past‐year gambling venue visits (P < 0.001) and lower spending on gambling per casino visit (P < 0.001). Compared with non‐patrons, bus tour patrons were more likely to be female (χ2= 21.92,P < 0.001), born outside Canada (χ2= 113.18,P < 0.001), above the age of 75 (χ2= 24.02,P < 0.001) and retired (χ2= 16.60,P < 0.001). Conclusions When adjusting for potential confounders among older adults, using bus tours to access Canadian gambling venues is associated with increased risk of problem gambling. Bus‐tour patrons are more likely to be female, born outside Canada and above the age of 75 years.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".