Leisure, lifestyle, and lifecycle project (LLLP): A longitudinal study of gambling in Alberta [Canada]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Leisure, Lifestyle, and Lifecycle Project (LLLP) is a five-year longitudinal study that was conducted by the Alberta Gambling Research Institute (AGRI). Prior to the LLLP, knowledge of problem gambling risk factors had been derived mainly from cross-sectional and retrospective studies of people coping with disordered gambling. This project was developed with the understanding that prevention and early intervention services for disordered gambling could be better informed by a rigorous longitudinal study of the natural progression of gambling in the general population. In order to examine the determinants and the course of both non-problematic gambling and problem gambling, the LLLP surveys collected data on a number of gambling-specific and general aspects of the responders' lives. The LLLP contains data relating to gambling-specific information, including: demographics; past year and lifetime gambling behaviour; gambling attitudes and beliefs in gambling fallacies; motivations for gambling; stigma experienced from gambling; and family history of gambling. In addition to gambling-specific data, the LLLP survey contains a number of general data variables, including: general/physical health; psychological factors (personality and temperament, psychopathology, coping strategies); comorbid factors (ADHD, eating disorders, substance use disorders); cultural factors (religiosity) and; social factors (social support/networks, non-gambling activity participation). A sample of 1,808 participants was recruited from four diverse regions of Alberta: Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge, and Grand Prairie. Participants were recruited primarily by random digit dialing, and five critical age ranges were targeted (13-15, 18-20, 23-25, and 63-65 year-olds) in order to assess problem gambling development throughout the lifespan. There are two separate LLLP datasets: one for adolescents (n=436) and another for adults (n=1,372). Data were collected over four waves, with a retention rate of 71.8% for adolescents and 76.2% for adults. A subsequent wave, combining adolescent and adult participants, was undertaken in 2013-2014. Additional information on sampling, retention, study variables, and survey questionnaires can be located in the LLLP User Manual.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".