Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is evident that cognitive, personality, and psychological aspects cannot explain all gambling behaviors among older Asian-Canadian people. Cultural and structural variables also play a role in the development of gambling among older people, as well as their previous life histories and their social supports. Applying life course analysis with a constructivist grounded theory approach, this study drew a sample of six Chinese and seven Filipino older gamblers in a central Canadian city to understand the development and behavior of gambling, including seven females and six males. While the majority of these gamblers demonstrated minimal to moderate levels of problems, two were assessed as problem gamblers by the Canadian Problem Gambling Severity Index. From the perspectives of lifelong development, human agency, cohort, timing, and linked lives, older gamblers reported varied pathways to recreational gambling or problem gambling as results of intertwined familial, structural, and environmental factors. Traumatic childhood experience (mainly caused by wars and underdeveloped economics), stressful survival environments in young and mid-adulthood (particularly after migrating to Canada as an immigrant or refugee), conflicts and transitions within the family in mid- and late adulthood (as direct or indirect consequences of early life stress), along with the cultural norms and personal attitudes towards gambling, appear to influence gambling trajectories for these older Asian-Canadians. The presentation concludes with a critical discussion of the effectiveness of current intervention practice, as well as a proposal for a prevention-intervention-support model based on the strengths of life course perspectives, for helping professionals working with minority older adults.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".