The AGRI National Project: Online Panel Study [Canada]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The AGRI National Project (ANP) was a three-year longitudinal study conducted by a multi-institute research team based at the Alberta Gambling Research Institute (AGRI). The aim of the study was to capture a national-wide picture of gambling and problem gambling in Canada. The ANP had ten research objectives. The Online Panel Study was one of three parts of the ANP and was central to many of the ten objectives. The aims of the study included but was not limited to: Determine provincial and demographic differences in gambling and problem gambling; Determine the prevalence of online gambling; and Determine the use of and perceived effectiveness of harm minimization initiatives in preventing problem gambling. The Online Panel Study collected data on several gambling-specific aspects of the responders' lives. The data contains gambling-specific information including: Demographics; Gambling attitudes and beliefs in gambling fallacies; Gambling participation; and Family history of problem gambling; In addition to gambling-specific data, the Online Panel Study contains general data variables including: Psychological factors (personality, mental health); and Comorbid factors (behavioural addictions, substance use, PTSD) A sample of 10,199 participants were recruited from each province of Canada. Participants were recruited through the Leger Opinion's registered pool of online participants. The LEO participant pool is structured to be demographically and geographically representative of the Canadian adult (18 years and older) population. Of the initial 10,199 participants, 4,707 participated in the follow-up survey. LEO registered participants were sent an email asking if they participated in gambling activities once per month. Participants who did gamble and consented to participating in the study were directed to an online survey. The baseline data was collected between August 2018 and October 2018. The follow-up data was collected between August 2019 and November 2019. Additional information on sampling, retention, study variables, and survey questionnaires can be located in the accompanying user manual and codebooks. The manual and codebooks were created by Dr. Carrie A. Shaw (née Leonard).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".