MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894819929 · doi:10.1080/14459795.2018.1520909

A latent class analysis of young adult gamblers from the Manitoba Longitudinal Survey of Young Adults

2018· article· en· W2894819929 on OpenAlexaffabout
Damien A. Dowd, Matthew T. Keough, Lorna S. Jakobson, James M. Bolton, Jason D. Edgerton

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Gambling Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLatent class modelImpulsivityOddsLongitudinal studyMultinomial logistic regressionYoung adultDepression (economics)Logistic regressionDemographyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Informed by the Pathways Model, the current study utilized latent class analysis (LCA) to empirically derive subtypes of gamblers based on measures of impulsivity, anxiety, depression, drug use and alcohol dependence. The sample in this study (N = 566) was comprised of young adult gamblers (18–22 years of age) who participated in the Manitoba Longitudinal Survey of Young Adults (MLSYA). Multinomial regression was utilized to examine how demographic variables and participant scores on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) predicted membership in gambler classes from the LCA. Results of the LCA revealed three classes of gamblers: emotionally vulnerable, non-problem and impulsive. Multinomial regression showed that older age (i.e. 20–22 years of age), lower income (< $20,000 per year), living independently and PGSI scores were associated with increased odds of being classified as an impulsive gambler. Identifying as European, living independently and PGSI scores were associated with increased odds of being grouped in the emotionally vulnerable class of gambler. These results suggest that young adult gamblers are not a homogeneous group but instead are best understood as falling into different subtypes based on shared characteristics outlined in the Pathways Model.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Gambling StudiesSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207