Using machine learning to retrospectively predict self‐reported gambling problems in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Participating in online gambling is associated with an increased risk for experiencing gambling-related harms, driving calls for more effective, personalized harm prevention initiatives. Such initiatives depend on the development of models capable of detecting at-risk online gamblers. We aimed to determine whether machine learning algorithms can use site data to detect retrospectively at-risk online gamblers indicated by the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). DESIGN: Exploratory comparison of six prominent supervised machine learning methods (decision trees, random forests, K-nearest neighbours, logistic regressions, artificial neural networks and support vector machines) to predict problem gambling risk levels reported on the PGSI. SETTING: Lotoquebec.com (formerly espacejeux.com), an online gambling platform operated by Loto-Québec (a provincial Crown Corporation) in Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: N = 9145 adults (18+) who completed the survey measure and placed at least one bet using real money on the site. MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed the PGSI, a self-report questionnaire with validated cut-offs denoting a moderate-to-high-risk (PGSI 5+) or high-risk (PGSI 8+) for experiencing past-year gambling-related problems. Participants agreed to release additional data about the preceding 12 months from their user accounts. Predictor variables (144) were derived from users' transactions, apparent betting behaviours, listed demographics and use of responsible gambling tools on the platform. FINDINGS: Our best classification models (random forests) for the PGSI 5+ and 8+ outcome variables accounted for 84.33% (95% CI = 82.24-86.41) and 82.52% (95% CI = 79.96-85.08) of the total area under their receiver operating characteristic curves, respectively. The most important factors in these models included the frequency and variability of participants' betting behaviour and repeat engagement on the site. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning algorithms appear to be able to classify at-risk online gamblers using data generated from their use of online gambling platforms. They may enable personalized harm prevention initiatives, but are constrained by trade-offs between their sensitivity and precision.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".