MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982511682 · doi:10.1089/glr2.2019.2397

CONVERGENCE BETWEEN GAMBLING AND GAMING: DOES THE GAMBLING AND GAMING INDUSTRY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY IN PROTECTING THE CONSUMER?

2019· article· en· W2982511682 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey L. Derevensky, Mark D. Griffiths

Bibliographic record

VenueGaming Law Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetSocial mediaSociologyAdvertisingPsychologyBusinessLawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does the gambling and gaming industry

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0120.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueGaming Law ReviewSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207