MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898290628 · doi:10.1108/jmlc-09-2017-0049

Time required to move cash through slot machines

2018· article· en· W2898290628 on OpenAlexaff
Karen R. Kelly, Carl J. Schwarz, Ricardo J. Gomez, Kim Marsh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Money Laundering Control · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCashTicketValidatorValue (mathematics)Computer scienceControl (management)FinanceComputer securityEconomicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present an empirical study on the time needed to load and disburse cash using bill validators on slot machines and stand-alone cash dispensers in casinos in British Columbia under a Ticket In Ticket Out (TITO) system. Design/methodology/approach Testing took place over two days, using 18 machines. The results were extrapolated to estimate the approximate time required to process $1,000,000 with different average bill amounts in the cash mix and three different bill validator machines in common use. The average value per bill using the cash mix used by the public in the casino was $33.11 [standard error (SE) $2.11]. Findings The mean time/accepted note ranged from 4.12 to 9.65 s, depending on bill validator type. This implies that the time needed to load $1,000,000 onto credit slips using bill validators on slot machines ranges from 35 to 81 h, excluding rest breaks and other breaks. The time needed to redeem $1,000,000 is estimated to be 3 h. Practical/implications The implications of these finding for illicit actors to successfully launder large amounts of cash are discussed. Given the time needed to physically handle the cash, and other control systems currently in use in casinos in British Columbia, processing large amounts of cash using bill validators on slot machines would require a highly organized team that would find it difficult to elude detection. Originality/value The trial results provide a baseline estimate to be used going forward when investigating or proposing money laundering methodologies that include slot machines.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.004

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Money Laundering ControlSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207