MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926083357 · doi:10.20381/ruor-28892

Gambling on Culture in Canada: Gaming as a Source of Funding for Culture, the Arts and Heritage

2002· other· en· W6926083357 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLotteryGovernment (linguistics)LicenseRevenueThe artsStatute

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study set out to examine the extent to which cultural activity in Canada is being funded through gaming revenues. It uncovered a tangled web of gaming activities and an even more tangled web of revenue allocations from those activities. Gambling in Canada has been legal since 1969 when an amendment to the Criminal Code gave the provinces authority to operate lottery schemes and casinos and to license charitable and religious organizations to conduct lottery schemes. In 1979, a federal-provincial agreement was entered into whereby the federal government agreed to abstain from conducting and managing lottery schemes. In return, the provinces agreed to pay the federal government the equivalent of C$24 million (in 1979 dollars) annually.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207