MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100191837

VLT laboratory 1 Against the Odds: Establishment of a Video Lottery Terminal Research Laboratory in a Naturalistic Setting

2015· article· en· W7100191837 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLotteryOddsCorporationsortTerminal (telecommunication)Control (management)Experimental psychologyBar (unit)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dalhousie Gambling Laboratory was founded in 1997. It occupies two rooms in the Psychology wing of the Life Sciences Centre at Dalhousie University. One of these is a standard laboratory with computers, files, telephone, etc. The other is a “bar-lab ” complete with a bar, bar stools, a television, and two video lottery terminals (VLTs) of a sort found in bars throughout Nova Scotia. On entering the bar-lab, participants encounter brightly coloured walls, beer posters, music videos, and in some studies they are invited to purchase beverages from the bar (including beer and mixed drinks) as in a real-life bar situation. In most studies, participants are free to play the VLTs using money out of their own pockets, keeping any winnings they might obtain. Electronic control of the machines is maintained by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation computer in Moncton, New Brunswick, and the odds of winning or losing on the bar-lab VLTs are the same as on all other machines appearing in Nova Scotia. Collaborators/Areas of Research Focus. Three Ph.D. level psychologists with distinct areas of expertise are collaborating on several different applied and theoretical research issues in this laboratory. Dr.

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)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.006

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGambling Behavior and Treatments→French-language works237,207→