Attitudes towards gambling in a Canadian university sample of young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While studies of gambling attitudes continue to grow among national adult populations and adolescents, no study to date has explored attitudes towards gambling among young adults (adults 18–25 years of age). We address this gap by exploring gambling attitudes using the Attitudes Towards Gambling Scale (ATGS) among a sample of 1,254 Canadian young adults from the University of Manitoba (n = 399 males, 32%). Results indicate that young adults are comparable to both adolescent and mature adults with respect to attitudes towards gambling, holding slightly negative feelings towards it as an activity, but feel individuals should retain the right to gamble despite personal risk. Regression analyses show that gambling, family/peer approval of gambling, and injunctive drinking norms of family and friends are the strongest predictors of favourable attitudes towards gambling. Given the strong roles of approval of gambling and drinking in young adults’ social environments, we recommend that research needs to more robustly address the normalization of multiple problem behaviours (drug use, deviance, etc.) among family and friends. We further recommend that therapeutic interventions be geared towards establishing new norms for young adults, for which group settings addressing multiple problem behaviours are especially helpful and cost-effective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".