Bibliographic record
Abstract
As most of my published papers on gambling in Canada have tended to declare at the outset, a 1969 amendment to the Canadian Criminal Code opened the door to a major transformation in the legal status of gambling in Canada. Prior to this amendment, pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing at race tracks was the only form of gambling legally permitted. Nonetheless, other forms of gambling such as charitable bingos and raffles for the purpose of raising funds for worthy community causes were operated in a grey and fuzzy area of criminal law. Thus, policing authorities through the 20th century often found themselves stymied by the ironic situation of willingly turning a blind eye to formally illegal bingos and raffles organized, conducted and participated in by upstanding members of their communities. Consequently, police authorities in Canada clamoured for greater clarity in the criminal law pertaining to gambling generally. The 1969 amendment was a political endeavor, not only to provide needed clarity but to modernize the law in keeping with changing public moral sentiments toward gambling. The 1969 amendment thus opened the door to legalized charitable “lottery schemes” for the purpose of fundraising in aid of worthy causes. It also opened the door to large-scale lotteries as long as they were “managed and conducted” by Canadian provincial governments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".