MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6968004597 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.1131054

Factors Affecting Slot Machine Performance In An Electronic Gaming Machine Facility

2017· article· en· W6968004597 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint (geometry)Variable (mathematics)Linear regressionRegression analysisPosition (finance)VariablesRegression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A facility exploiting only electronic gambling machines (EGMs) opened in 2007 in Quebec City, Canada under the name of Salons de Jeux du Québec (SdjQ). This facility is one of the first worldwide to rely on that business model. This paper models the performance of such EGMs. The interest from a managerial point of view is to identify the variables that can be controlled or influenced so that a comprehensive model can help improve the overall performance of the business. The EGM individual performance model contains eight different variables under study (Game Title, Progressive jackpot, Bonus Round, Minimum Coin-in, Maximum Coin-in, Denomination, Slant Top and Position). Using data from Quebec City’s SdjQ, a linear regression analysis explains 90.80% of the EGM performance. Moreover, results show a behavior slightly different than that of a casino. The addition of GameTitle as a factor to predict the EGM performance is one of the main contributions of this paper. The choice of the game (GameTitle) is very important. Games having better position do not have significantly better performance than games located elsewhere on the gaming floor. Progressive jackpots have a positive and significant effect on the individual performance of EGMs. The impact of BonusRound on the dependent variable is significant but negative. The effect of Denomination is significant but weakly negative. As expected, the Language of an EGMS does not impact its individual performance. This paper highlights some possible improvements by indicating which features are performing well. Recommendations are given to increase the performance of the EGMs performance.

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)0.005
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 score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicGambling Behavior and Treatments→French-language works237,207→