Parents' Perception of Youth Gambling and other Risk Behaviors - Comparison between Croatian and Canadian Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of international literature demonstrates how, besides individual risk factors, parents, peers and accessibility of gambling venues have an important role in explaining prevalence of youth gambling and gambling related problems. Recent studies conducted in Croatia identified significantly higher prevalence rates of youth gambling and gambling related problems compared to other international jurisdictions (e.g., Canada), which may be attributed to social differences and recent liberalization of gambling market. This research compares how parents from Croatia and Canada perceive youth gambling in relation to other youth risk behaviors, as well as their reactions if their child had a gambling problem. The sample consists of 2.710 parents from Canada (m=31.2% ; f=68.8%) and 770 parents from Croatia (m=36.8% ; f=63.2%). Parallel forms of instruments were used to assess parents’ perception and concerns related to multiple youth risk behaviors, the frequency of parents communicating with their child about these risks, as well as potential reactions if their child developed a gambling problem. Results of MANOVA (country by gender) indicate more significant effects of gender on perceived seriousness of all risk behaviors except youth gambling, where the impact of the country are strongest. Parents from Croatia perceive gambling problems amongst youth to be r much more of a serious problem than Canadian parents. The results will be discussed in accordance with previous research in the field, social and societal differences and the specific context of gambling market in each country.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".