Canadian Gambling Digest 2016-2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of its ongoing commitment, the CPRG is pleased to introduce the expanded Digest, an easily-accessible and searchable report that assembles and summarizes a) accurate statistics about regulated gaming activities across Canada, 2) legislation and its associated regulations and policies, and 3) community initiatives with an emphasis on responsible gambling programs and practices. The purpose of The Digest is to provide a single, consolidated source of factual information about gambling and responsible gambling in Canada that continues to be open and transparent. While considerable effort is made to ensure that the data and information in a given card are comparable across provinces, this is not always possible due to differences in record keeping and other factors. Unless stated otherwise, all data and/or text in each version of The Digest pertain to a fiscal year covering April 1 through March 31. Revenues have been rounded off to the nearest thousand. Information in The Digest is obtained from annual reports, previous Digests, other publicly available documents, websites, and through extensive direct contact with gaming providers, regulators, and other individuals from various organizations and government departments. Data and/or text that is unavailable at the time of publish are denoted through the report as 'unavailable.'
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.207 | 0.070 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".