MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917941637 · doi:10.11575/prism/9344

2009 Newfoundland and Labrador Gambling Prevalence Study

2009· article· en· W2917941637 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Newfoundland, Community Services

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report presents the findings of the 2009 Newfoundland and Labrador Gambling Prevalence Study conducted by MarketQuest Research on behalf of the Department of Health and Community Services, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Three years following the completion of the 2005 Newfoundland and Labrador Gambling Prevalence Study, the Department would now like to follow up with a second gambling prevalence study to observe and track gambling trends in the province. This study will gather data with respect to: • The prevalence of gambling and problem gambling in the province; • Profiles of gambler sub-types and players of certain gambling activities; • The relationship between gambling and correlates of gambling including substance use and mental health; • Consequences related to gambling; and • Awareness of support and treatment services. This information will provide the Department and the Regional Health Authorities (RHAs) with the information needed to continue to guide prevention, promotion, education, and treatment services related to gambling in the province.

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)0.001
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207