MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136075801 · doi:10.1007/s11469-021-00524-z

Prevalence of Problem Gambling Among Women Using Shelter and Drop-in Services

2021· article· en· W3136075801 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Flora I. Matheson, Parisa Dastoori, Tara Hahmann, Julia Woodhall‐Melnik, Sara J. T. Guilcher, Sarah Hamilton‐Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New BrunswickSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsHealth psychologyPublic healthRehabilitationDrop outPsychologyDrop (telecommunication)Environmental healthPsychiatryMedicineGerontologyClinical psychologyPhysical therapyNursingDemographic economicsEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People experiencing poverty/homelessness have higher rates of problematic gambling than the general population. Yet, research on gambling among this population is sparse, notably among women. This study examined prevalence of problematic gambling among women using shelter and drop-in services in Ontario, Canada. The NORC Diagnostic Screen for Disorders was administered to women during visits to 15 sites using time/location methodology. Within a sample of 162 women, the prevalence of at-risk (6.2%), problem (9.3%), and pathological gambling (19.1%) was higher than the general population. Among women who scored at-risk or higher, 55.4% met criteria for pathological gambling. The findings suggest that women seeking shelter and drop-in services are vulnerable to problematic gambling. Creating awareness of this vulnerability within the shelter and drop-in service sector is an important first step to support women with gambling problems who face financial and housing precarity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mental Health and AddictionSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207