Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling, Third Edition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is seen by many as a form of leisure and recreation, gambling can have serious repercussions for individuals, families, and society as a whole.The harmful effects of gambling have been studied for decades in an attempt to understand individual differences in gambling engagement and the lifecourse of gambling-related problems.In this publication, we present a comprehensive, internationally relevant conceptual framework of "harmful gambling" that moves beyond a symptoms-based view of harm and addresses a broad set of factors related to population risk, community, and societal effects.Factors included in the framework represent major topics relating to gambling that range from specific (gambling environment, exposure, types, and resources) to general (cultural, social, psychological, and biological).The framework has been created by international, interdisciplinary experts in order to facilitate an understanding of harmful gambling.It reflects the state of knowledge related to factors influencing harmful gambling, and serves a secondary purpose as a guide for the development of future research programs and to educate policy makers on issues related to harmful gambling.Gambling Research Exchange Ontario (GREO) (formerly the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre (OPGRC) located in Guelph, Ontario, Canada) has facilitated the development of the Conceptual Framework of Harmful Gambling and retains responsibility for keeping it up-to-date.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".