Tampere casino: The last bizarre synergy between addiction capitalism and a state gambling monopoly?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the early 2020s, despite growing public concern about gambling harms, the Finnish city of Tampere hosted a state-monopoly-operated casino as part of a new entertainment arena complex. This study sheds light on the legitimisation of this project in terms of urban development and governance as well as a framing of gambling as appealing and socially acceptable. It explores the project's rationale through 10 interviews with city politicians, directors, and project executives. Using an inductive methodology, the study identifies pro-casino justifications concerning city planning, the gambling monopoly, consumer competence, and addiction. The findings unfold how the casino was framed as a safe, sophisticated venue, enhancing Tampere's image as a cosmopolitan leisure hub. This aligns with addiction capitalism and the commodification of leisure. The interviewees navigated tensions between economic growth and public welfare by distinguishing between types of gambling, separating casino patrons from stigmatised supermarket gamblers, thus reinforcing social and cultural hierarchies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".