The prevalence of problem gambling and gambling-related behaviours among older adults in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the proportion of Canadians over the age of 55 continues to rise, it accordingly becomes increasingly important to understand the implications that their leisure activities have for their physical and mental health. Gambling is a form of leisure that presents relatively high risk for its participants and remains a popular leisure pursuit among older adults. The current study uses a representative survey of 2,187 adults over the age of 55 in Ontario to explore problem gambling and gambling-related behaviours among older adults. The findings show that 1.8% of the population over the age 55 were classified as experiencing moderate-to-severe problem gambling. While differences across sex were observed in types of gambling, attitudes towards gambling, and frequency of gambling, no significance difference in problem gambling was observed. Findings are discussed in relation to previous findings on older adults’ gambling patterns and their implications for mental, physical and financial well-being.RésuméAvec la constante augmentation de la proportion de Canadiens âgés de plus de 55 ans, il devient de plus en plus important de comprendre les répercussions qu’ont leurs activités de loisir sur leur santé physique et mentale. Le jeu est une forme de loisir qui présente un risque relativement élevé chez les personnes qui s’y adonnent et demeure un loisir populaire chez les personnes plus âgées. L’étude en question a utilisé un sondage représentatif auprès de 2187 adultes âgés de plus de 55 ans en Ontario pour explorer le jeu problématique et les comportements liés au jeu chez les personnes plus âgées. Les résultats montrent que 1,8 % de la population âgée de plus de 55 ans a été classée comme ayant un problème de jeu, de modéré à grave. Bien que des différences entre les sexes aient été observées dans les types de jeu, les attitudes à l’égard du jeu et la fréquence, aucune différence significative n’a été observée dans le jeu problématique. Les résultats sont examinés en lien avec des conclusions antérieures sur les habitudes de jeu des personnes plus âgées et leurs répercussions sur le bien-être mental, physique et financier.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".