Why, by Whom and How?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To strengthen the right to support for people with gambling problems in Sweden, legislative changes were enacted in 2018. This study aims to critically examine how problems and solutions are represented in 69 appeals concerning gambling treatment within the general administrative court (2014–2022) and to assess how these representations have evolved following the legal amendments. The study employs Bacchi’s WPR approach to scrutinize court judgments. The results reveal that gambling problems are unequivocally recognized as severe issues requiring intervention, with both explicit and implicit notions of the problem rooted in the concept of loss of control. Prior to the legal amendments, rulings primarily focused on identifying the responsible actor for providing care, often framed within a medical discourse. Post-amendment, the focus shifted to how treatment needs should be met, emphasizing an evidence-based discourse. These varying representations produce discursive, subjectifying, and material consequences, significantly affecting access to different welfare interventions. The new legislation has solidified the responsibility of social services to provide treatment for gambling problems. However, as the study demonstrates, responsibilization of gamblers occurs not only in policy and treatment frameworks, but also within the court system.
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.
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 it