Addiction, Ground Rents, and Urban Casino Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Casino development has become a favoured urban development strategy in a number of post-industrialising western economies (Hannigan, 2007). These developments are often justified on the basis that casinos attract reputedly rich and super-rich consumers from other places in what amounts to a rather convenient geographical transfer of value. These wealthy consumers, so the mercantilist argument goes, enrich both the casino owners and the broader public through taxes and license fees. Moreover, these gambling dollars are imported, while the effects and responsibility for problem gambling, one of the key arguments against gambling developments, are conveniently exported. A second argument, particularly favoured by the gambling industry and other casino proponents, is the creation of local jobs, both in construction and subsequent casino operations. For example, the Canadian casino operator Gateway Casino and Entertainment has organised its new casino proposal for London, Canada, around the creation of 700 local jobs. More generally, neoclassical economists suggest that casinos tend to increase economic growth in the longer-term (e.g. Walker, 2007). A third argument is that casinos bring a certain symbolic value to a city, particularly if they take the form of large towers such as Barangaroo, Sydney, or its proposed competitor in Star City Casino located across the harbour in Pyrmont.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it