Manitobans and Gambling II (2007) [Canada]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Manitobans and Gambling II (2007) study was developed by the Manitoba Gaming Control Commission (MGCC), an organization responsible for ensuring that accurate information about gambling was available to guide responsible gambling initiatives in the province. The purpose of this survey was to obtain a comprehensive picture of adult Manitobans’ current gambling attitudes, awareness, knowledge and behaviours. This study is the second phase of the Manitobans and Gambling series, which began in 2004 and was conducted in three-year cycles (2004, 2007, 2010). This study gathers data with respect to: Demographic characteristics; Participation in gambling activities; Beliefs and knowledge of gambling myths; Definitions of responsible gambling; Ability to recognize problem gambling signs in people; Awareness of gambling education campaigns, and; Awareness of the MGCC and its purpose A representative, random sample of Manitoba’s population was developed and quotas were put in place to ensure accurate representation by gender and region. A total of 1,200 adults in Manitoba contacted by the Kisquared research firm participated in a telephone survey. The survey response rate was 29%. Responses are accurate within +/-3.12%, or 19 times out of 20. To compensate for a low response rate, weights derived from the 2001 Canadian Census were applied.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 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".