MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198240419 · doi:10.4309/jgi.2022.49.2

The geography of gambling: A socio-spatial analysis of gambling machine location and area-level socio-economic status

2022· article· en· W3198240419 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Søren Kristiansen, Rolf Lyneborg Lund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gambling Issues · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAalborg Universitet
KeywordsGeographyHarmCluster (spacecraft)Geographically Weighted RegressionPopulationEconomic geographyRegional scienceSocioeconomicsCartographyDemographyStatisticsPsychologySociologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study mapped the geographical location and density of electronic gambling machines (EGMs) in Denmark and investigated whether gambling machines cluster in areas with specific socio-economic status (SES) characteristics. Using micro-area modeling and inverse probability weighted regression adjustments, the study was based on register data on SES, EGM location data and geographical grid data. Findings showed that EGMs were distributed throughout the country with some notable clusters in the larger cities. While identifying city-based hotspots, findings also indicated that pure population density offered merely partial explanations in term of EGM location. In terms of links between area-level SES and EGM density, the study found a significant and positive correlation between low level of SES and EGM density. This study could inform fine grained geographical risk localization and harm minimizing measures that transcends well-known administrative area classifications.

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)0.003
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gambling IssuesSame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207