Patterns of gambling and substance use initiation in African American and White adolescents and young adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 317) enriched for risk for alcohol use disorder and includes those who were assessed for gambling behaviors and problems: AA (360 males, 390 females) and White (287 males, 312 females). Findings indicated racial differences in the overall prevalence of gambling behaviors and substance use as well as patterns of initiation-particularly within gambling/alcohol and gambling/tobacco for males. Survival models revealed some similarities as well as differences across race and gender groups in associations of gambling with initiation of substances, as well as substances with initiation of gambling. Alcohol use (AA males only) and cannabis use (AA males and White females) elevated the hazards of initiating gambling. In contrast, gambling significantly elevated the hazards of initiation alcohol across 3 of 4 groups and of cannabis use in AA males only. The results highlight some overlapping as well as distinct risk factors for both gambling and substance use initiation in this cohort enriched for vulnerability to alcohol use disorder (AUD). These findings have implications for integrating gambling prevention into existing substance use prevention and intervention efforts-particularly but not exclusively for young AA males. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".