MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405702701 · doi:10.1080/16066359.2024.2444221

Gambling during economic downturns: a comparative Nordic study of gambling revenue data

2024· article· en· W4405702701 on OpenAlexaff
Søren Kristiansen, Virve Marionneau, Tomi Roukka, Håkan Wall

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction Research & Theory · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
FundersForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdAcademy of Finland
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)EconomicsRevenuePrivate consumptionDemographic economicsPermanent income hypothesisConsumer spendingPublic economicsMonetary economicsRecessionMacroeconomicsFiscal policyMarket liquiditySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Gambling expenditure is influenced by a range of individual-level and societal factors. Changes in these may also impact gambling consumption. Yet, little research has investigated how macroeconomic changes, such as changes in disposable income and economic downturns, translate to gambling consumption. Some forms of gambling may be impacted by economic downturns, but no comparative evidence is available.Methods The current study uses longitudinal gambling company revenue data (2019–2022) and household disposable income data to chart how economic fluctuations and downturns during the early 2020s have impacted gambling consumption at a product category level in three Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland, and Denmark).Results Results show that overall, Nordic gambling markets were not affected by changes in household disposable income during this period. However, at product category level, we found a significant negative association between disposable income and lotteries and EGMs in Sweden, as well as a significant positive association between disposable income and online casinos and betting in Finland.Conclusion Gambling is not ordinary leisure consumption, and the consumption of gambling can even increase during financial uncertainty. However, these processes can vary across contexts based on differences in gambling provision and baseline gambling consumption.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.534
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.036 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddiction Research & TheorySame topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207