MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888048196 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2018.39.9

Cheating and stealing to finance gambling: analysis of screening data from a problem gambling self-help program

2018· article· en· W2888048196 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kalle Lind, Juha Kääriäinen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlkoholitutkimussäätiö
KeywordsCheatingHumanitiesPsychologyGambling disorderAddictionSocial psychologyPsychiatryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have suggested strongly that early engagement in gambling anticipates severe gambling problems. Problem gambling and gambling addiction are linked to financial difficulties, depression and weakened life control. One social consequence of excessive gambling is property crime. In this study, we analyze screening data (N = 1573) from a problem gambling self-help program to locate predictors of such criminal behaviour. We applied logistic regression to determine the relationship between problem gambling and both reported cheating and stealing. Our objective was to create an empirically-based model of the different risk factors related to such criminogenic gambling. Our models suggest that self-reported gambling-related cheating and stealing is related to young age, low education, low income, a high rate of depression, a long history of problem gambling, and negative subjective perception of one’s financial situation.RésuméDes études antérieures ont confirmé qu’une participation précoce à des jeux d’argent prédit de graves problèmes de jeu. Le jeu compulsif et la dépendance au jeu sont liés aux difficultés financières, à la dépression et à un faible contrôle sur la vie. Une conséquence sociale du jeu excessif est la criminalité contre les biens. Dans cette étude, nous analysons les données de dépistage (N = 1573) d’un programme d’auto-assistance sur le jeu problématique pour trouver des prédicateurs d’un tel comportement criminel. Nous avons appliqué la régression logistique pour déterminer la relation entre le jeu problématique et la tricherie et le vol rapportés. Notre objectif était de créer un modèle empirique des différents facteurs de risque liés à ces jeux criminogènes. Nos modèles suggèrent que la tricherie et le vol autodéclarés attribuables au jeu sont liés au jeune âge, à un faible niveau de scolarité, à un faible revenu, à un taux élevé de dépression, à une longue histoire de jeu compulsif et à une perception subjective négative de sa situation financière.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.358
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.137 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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