Cross Validation of the Gambling Problem Severity Subscale of the Canadian Adolescent Gambling Index (CAGI/GPSS) on a Sample of Ontario High School Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the cross validation of the Gambling Problem Severity Subscale of the Canadian Adolescent Gambling Index (CAGI/GPSS). The CAGI/GPSS was included in a large school based drug use and health survey conducted in 2015. Data from students in grades 9-12 (ages 13-20 years) derived from the (N = 3369 students). The CAGI/GPSS produced an alpha of 0.789. A principle component analysis revealed two eigenvalues greater than one. An oblique rotation revealed these components to represent consequences and over involvement. The CAGI/GPSS indicated that 1% of the students fell into the "red" category indicating a severe problem and an additional 3.3% scored in the "yellow" category indicating low to moderate problems. The CAGI/GPSS was shown to be significantly correlated with gambling frequency (r = 0.36), largest expenditure (r = 0.37), sex (more likely to be male) (r = -0.19), lower school marks (r = -0.07), hazardous drinking, (r = 0.16), problem video game play (r = 0.16), as well as substance abuse. The CAGI/GPSS was cross validated using a shorted version of the short SOGS, r = 0.48. In addition the CAGI/GPSS and short SOGS produced very similar patterns of correlations results. The results support the validity and reliability of the CAGI/GPSS as a measure of gambling problems among adolescents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".