Trends in gambling behavior among college student-athletes: A comparison of 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 NCAA survey data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Student-athletes represent a vulnerable subgroup of the college student population with regards to engagement in high-risk behaviours. Four large samples of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) student-athletes in 2004 (N = 20,587), 2008 (N = 19,942), 2012 (N = 22,935) and 2016 (N = 22,388) were surveyed about their gambling behaviours and attitudes. A cross-sectional study was conducted to gain insight into changing gambling behaviours and attitudes among college student-athletes. Findings revealed gender differences in participation rates of gambling with men consistently engaging in all gambling activities at higher rates than women (55% of men versus 38% women in 2016). Despite gender differences, the results suggest that participation rates for most gambling activities have generally decreased over the twelve-year span. The proportion of student-athletes at-risk or meeting criteria for pathological gambling between 2004 and 2016 has also decreased among men (4% in 2004 versus 2% in 2016) while remaining relatively consistent among women (<1% across all years). Furthermore, attitudes towards various forms of gambling appear to have changed over time, with a greater number of student-athletes in 2016 believing that sports wagering is unacceptable and a potentially harmful activity. Taken together, the results suggest that gambling behaviours among student-athletes may be on a downward trend despite the increased accessibility and availability of gambling opportunities.RésuméEn ce qui concerne la participation à des comportements à risque élevé, les étudiants-athlètes représentent un sous-groupe vulnérable de la population des étudiants universitaires. Quatre grands échantillons d’étudiants-athlètes de la National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), 2004 (N = 20 587), 2008 (N = 19 942), 2012 (N = 22 935) et 2016 (N = 22 388), ont été sondés sur leurs comportements et leurs attitudes de jeu. Une étude transversale a été menée afin de mieux comprendre l’évolution des comportements et des attitudes face au jeu chez les étudiants athlètes. Les résultats ont révélé des différences entre les sexes dans les taux de participation au jeu, les hommes pratiquant systématiquement toutes les activités de jeu à un taux plus élevé que celui des femmes (55 % d’hommes contre 38 % de femmes en 2016). Malgré les différences entre les sexes, les résultats laissent entendre que les taux de participation à la plupart des activités de jeu ont généralement diminué au cours de la période de douze ans. La proportion d’étudiants-athlètes à risque ou satisfaisant aux critères du jeu pathologique entre 2004 et 2016 a également chuté chez les hommes (4 % en 2004 contre 2 % en 2016), tout en restant relativement stable chez les femmes (<1 % pour toutes les années). En outre, les attitudes vis-à-vis des différentes formes de jeu semblent avoir évolué au fil du temps. En 2016, un plus grand nombre d’étudiants-athlètes pensaient que les paris sportifs étaient inacceptables et potentiellement nocifs. Mis ensemble, les résultats suggèrent que les comportements de jeu parmi les étudiants-athlètes pourraient être à la baisse, en dépit de l’accessibilité accrue et de la disponibilité des possibilités de jeu.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".