Gambling and Gaming in an Ontario Sample of Youth and Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the convergence of the gambling and gaming worlds, the majority of studies of gambling behaviour are void of gaming behaviour and vice versa. Further, many studies examine specific age ranges rather than covering the entire span of adolescence and young adulthood. The current study improves our knowledge of gambling and gaming behaviours, as well as their convergence, by examining young people aged 8 to 24 and parents of children 8 to 17 years in Ontario. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed on a survey of 2,651 Ontarians (678 adolescents, 973 young adults, and 1,000 parents who reported on themselves and their child). Young people and parents are engaging in games that combine gambling and gaming at substantial rates and frequencies, and playing these games is associated with a higher level of risk. In this sample, playing video games for money and social casino games were associated with a higher level of gambling problems among adolescents (p < .001, p =.001), young adults (p < .001, p < .001), and parents (p < .001, p < .001). Further, parent reports of their own and their child’s gambling (p < .001), social casino play (p < .001), and gambling concerns were linked (p < .001). In summary, we found that playing games that combine gambling and gaming was associated with increased risk across youth age groups. Parents who reported gambling, social casino play, and gambling concerns also tended to report these behaviours among and concerns for their children.Résumé Malgré la convergence entre les univers des jeux de hasard et des jeux vidéo, la majorité des études sur le comportement des joueurs excluent l’une ou l’autre activité. De plus, elles se limitent à une tranche d’âge précise plutôt que de couvrir la période entière de l’adolescence et de la jeune vie adulte. Notre enquête ajoute aux connaissances sur les habitudes en matière de jeux de hasard et de jeux vidéo et la convergence entre ces activités. Elle a été menée en Ontario auprès de jeunes âgés de huit à 24 ans et de parents d’enfants âgés de huit à 17 ans. 2651 Ontariens (678 adolescents, 973 jeunes adultes et 1000 parents répondant en leur propre nom et en celui de leur enfant) ont répondu à un questionnaire dont les résultats ont fait l’objet d’une analyse descriptive et bivariée. Un grand nombre de jeunes et de parents combinent fréquemment jeux de hasard et jeux vidéo, une activité liée à un niveau de risque élevé. Dans notre échantillon, la pratique des jeux vidéo pour de l’argent et des jeux de casino est associée à un risque élevé de problèmes de jeu chez l’adolescent (p < .001, p =.001), le jeune adulte (p < .001, p < .001) et les parents (p < .001, p < .001). De plus, un lien a été établi entre les habitudes de jeu déclarées par les parents à propos d’eux-mêmes et de leurs enfants (p < .001), les jeux de casino (p < .001) et les problèmes de jeu (p < .001). La pratique combinée des jeux de hasard et des jeux vidéo est associée à une augmentation du risque dans tous les groupes d’âge. Ainsi, les comportements et les problèmes de jeu observés chez les parents tendent à se refléter chez leurs enfants.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".