{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030397854269110416, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019669199821189094, 'mean_word_length': 5.543859649122807, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Much of what we know about the effects of earlier changes in the gambling industry and gambling technologies--such as the introduction of slot machines and the legalization of casinos in Nevada--comes from historical, biographical, and ethnographic narratives

Most research on the causes of pathological gambling examines gamblers themselves-their family backgrounds, personality traits, experiences with gambling, attitudes about risk, motivations to gamble, and genetic attributes. Such research can lead to a better understanding of individual risk factors in pathological gambling and to better ways to predict and treat gambling problems. Another perspective examines changes in the social and technological environment surrounding gambling. From this perspective, we can ask whether changes in the organization of the gambling enterprise and technologies of gambling lead to more or fewer pathological or problem gamblers, or to new disorders associated with gambling. These are critical questions for developing sensible policies. Most of the research on these questions is only indirectly related to pathological gambling. At the level of games and betting, there is considerable experimental research on the effects of game structure and game presentation on people’s propensity to take risks or to make “nonrational” gambles (e.g., Cole and Hastie, 1978; Mikesell and Zorn, 1987; Ladouceur and Gaboury, 1988). Papers have been authored about how, at the level of society, legalization has potentially affected the prevalence of gambling and pathological gambling (Rose, 1995, 1998). There also has been discussion, but not much empirical research, on how changes in the gambling industry have changed the social context of gambling (e.g., Clotfelter and Cook, 1989). More recently, researchers and policymakers are debating whether the spread of computer-based (video or machine) gambling is changing the prevalence or nature of pathological gambling (Fisher, 1994; Fisher and Griffiths, 1995). Research has not established whether distinctive types of gambling organization and technology cause systematic changes in pathological gambling, but some of the research suggests such links may exist (Griffiths, 1993, 1995, 1998).