Comparing ‘fair’ machine learning models for detecting at-risk online gamblers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have worked to develop machine learning models that detect at-risk online gamblers, enabling personalized harm prevention tools. However, existing research has not evaluated these models’ potential to reinforce or amplify sociodemographic biases leading to treatment disparity, a recognized issue in the machine learning field. We sought to develop and compare three examples of potentially fair models using online gambling data. In two large samples of transaction data from a provincially owned Canadian gambling website (N1 = 9,145, N2 = 10,716), we developed three machine learning models based on competing concepts of fairness: fairness via unawareness, classification parity, and outcome calibration. We hypothesized that significant relationships existed between reporting a high risk of past-year gambling problems (the dependent variable) and participants’ age and sex. Further, we hypothesized that the three ‘fair’ models would show differing levels of classification performance both in aggregate and within sociodemographic groups. Significant age and sex effects were found, refuting the fairness via unawareness modeling strategy. Superiority across all performance metrics was not present for either of the remaining models. For the fairest practices in any jurisdiction, classification parity and outcome calibration models should be tested in situ, and incorporate the perspectives and preferences of end users who will be affected.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".