Neighborhood Perceptions Associated with Gambling Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objectives: Within the field of gambling research, an emerging body of literature has begun to examine the associations between neighborhood context and gambling outcomes (i.e., gambling participation and problems). Previous research has been heavily focused on objective measures of neighborhood influence with few studies examining subjective (i.e., perceived) neighborhood attributes as they relate to gambling outcomes. This study aimed to expand knowledge of the effects of neighborhood characteristics on gambling patterns and problems. Methods: Using data derived from the fourth wave of an epidemiological community sample (n = 1862), this study explores the associations between perceived neighborhood contextual factors and gambling participation and problems. Results: Our findings reveal that community participation was positively related to gambling participation, even after accounting for control variables (i.e., sex and social support). Perceived neighborhood disorder was positively associated with problem gambling. Conclusions: Findings highlight the importance of looking beyond individual risk factors for gambling outcomes. Population-based interventions for gambling problems may benefit from understanding how neighborhood contexts come into play. Objectifs: Le domaine de la recherche sur les jeux de hasard et d’argent (JHA) voit émerger une littérature qui examine les associations entre les facteurs de l’environnement et les habitudes de JHA (c’est-à-dire la participation et les problèmes de jeu). Les recherches antérieures se sont fortement centrées sur les mesures objectives de l’influence de l’environnement et peu d’études ont examiné les caractéristiques perçues de l’environnement en lien avec les comportements de jeu. Cette étude visait à élargir la connaissance des effets des caractéristiques de l’environnement sur les habitudes de JHA. Méthodes: À partir de données provenant de la quatrième vague de collecte d’un échantillon épidémiologique recruté dans la communauté (n = 1 862), cette étude explore les associations entre les facteurs contextuels de voisinage perçus, la participation et les problèmes de jeu. Résultats: Nos résultats révèlent que la participation communautaire est positivement liée à la participation aux JHA lorsque le sexe et le soutien social sont contrôlés. Le trouble perçu dans le voisinage est associé positivement au jeu problématique. Conclusion: Les résultats suggèrent qu’il est important de regarder au-delà des facteurs de risque individuels dans l’étude des habitudes de JHA. Les interventions populationnelles visant les problèmes de JHA bénéficieraient grandement d’une meilleure compréhension du rôle du voisinage.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".