MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774258498 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2018.37.1

Market Cannibalization Within and Between Gambling Industries: A Systematic Review

2017· review· en· W2774258498 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Virve Marionneau, Janne Nikkinen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannibalizationEconomicsProduct (mathematics)HumanitiesAdvertisingBusinessIndustrial organizationArtMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In economics, cannibalization refers to a process in which a new product or service partly or completely substitutes for those in existing markets. This systematic review analyses the existing evidence on cannibalization within gambling markets to determine whether such substitution takes place between different types of gambling. The analysis shows that new gambling products substitute to a certain extent for existing gambling products. The sector in which the evidence is most convincing is the casino industry, which cannibalizes lotteries and pari-mutuel racing. There is also evidence that casinos substitute for other casinos and for non-casino electronic gaming machines. Lotteries substitute for casinos, other lotteries, sports betting, and pari-mutuel or racing industries. In other cases, the evidence is less conclusive and sometimes non-existent, or industry relationships are more complicated. This review also found that even in cases where substitution does occur, it is incomplete, and thus the introduction of new products tends to expand the overall gambling market. We discuss these market dynamics and identify gaps in the available research. RésuméEn économie, on entend par cannibalisation un processus par lequel un nouveau produit ou service se substitue partiellement ou complètement à des produits ou services existants. Cet examen systématique analyse les données dont on dispose sur la cannibalisation dans les marchés du jeu pour déterminer si une telle substitution a lieu entre différents types de jeux de hasard. L’analyse montre que les nouveaux produits de jeux de hasard remplacent, dans une certaine mesure, certains produits de jeu existants. La preuve la plus convaincante est celle portant sur le secteur du casino qui cannibalise les loteries et les courses de pari mutuel. Il est également prouvé que les casinos accaparent légèrement le marché d’autres casinos et d’appareils de jeu hors casino. Les loteries s’approprient une part de marché des casinos, d’autres loteries, de paris sportifs et mutuels ou des secteurs de la course. Dans d’autres cas, les preuves sont moins concluantes, voire inexistantes, ou les relations entre les divers secteurs sont plus compliquées. Cet examen a également révélé que, même dans les cas où il y a un accaparement du marché, il n’est pas total et, par conséquent, le lancement de nouveaux produits tend plutôt à élargir le marché global du jeu. Nous abordons ces dynamiques de marché et cernons les lacunes dans la recherche disponible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.595
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.047 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gambling IssuesSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207