MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W608363665 · doi:10.82308/30013

Youth gambling problems : the identification of risk and protective factors

2005· article· en· W608363665 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Laurie Dickson

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Behavioral Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsIdentification (biology)CriminologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the relationship between several risk and protective variables associated with problem gambling, substance abuse, and other multiple risk-taking activities by adolescents. With the goal of identifying protective factors that prevent youth from escalating from social gambling to serious problem gambling, this research examined the relationship between family cohesion, school connectedness, coping and adaptive behaviours, mentor relationships, achievement motivation, involvement in conventional organizations, and the development of three health-compromising outcomes---youth problem gambling, substance abuse, and involvement in multiple risk-taking behaviours (e.g., smoking, unsafe sexual activity, and reckless driving). The sample consisted of 2,179 students, ages 11 to 19, in the Province of Ontario. Family and school connectedness were associated with decreased involvement in excessive gambling, substance use, and multiple risk-taking activities. Furthermore, an examination of the effect of potential protective factors on a set of risk factors predictive of adolescent problem gambling suggested that family cohesion plays a role in the prediction of probable pathological gamblers and those at risk for developing a gambling problem. These findings were interpreted with respect to their implications for the development and implementation of prevention programs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicSocial and Behavioral StudiesFrench-language works237,207