British Columbia problem gambling prevalence study 2002 [Canada]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of the 2002 survey was to provide information about the impacts of problem gambling in British Columbia (BC) to assist the Province in its efforts to help individuals and groups affected by this disorder. Specifically, this research is designed to provide the Province with the following information: 1) prevalence and nature of gambling and problem gambling within the adult population of British Columbia, 2) demographic characteristics of non-gamblers and gambler subtypes, 3) gambling activities of the subtypes, 4) problem gambling behaviour and consequences for gambler subtypes, 5) comparisons with research findings from the 1993 and 1996 prevalence studies conducted in BC, 6) comparisons with research findings from studies conducted in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, 7) comparisons with research findings from the national Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI) validation study, and 8) conclusions, implications and recommendations that may assist the Problem Gambling Program, Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch, BC Lottery Corporation and the Government of British Columbia in developing policies and programs to address the problems associated with excessive gambling. This is the CPGI baseline study of the prevalence of gambling and problem gambling in British Columbia (N=2,500).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".