01010000 01001100 01000001 01011001: Play Elements in Computer Programming.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article explores the role of play in human interaction with computers in the context of computer programming. The author considers many facets of programming including the literary practice of coding, the abstract design of programs, and more mundane activities such as testing, debugging, and hacking. She discusses how these incorporate the aesthetics, creative imagination, and game play of programmers. She suggests that the seemingly intractable and unplayful elements of computers, in fact, invite playful responses and actions by programmers and that programmers use play to understand, engage with, and creatively imagine and reconfigure the complexity of computer systems. She concludes that human-machine relationships and computer programming constitute fruitful areas for further play research. Key words: computer programming and poetry; debugging; hacking; human and computer relations; play and computers; testing[01001001:I]ntroductionIn several episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise encounter the Borg. Members of this cybernetic species live together as a hive mind and attempt to assimilate all others in the galaxy into the perfection that is their collective. The Borg represent an ongoing academic and popular discussion about the relationship between humans and cybernetic and computing machines that began around the 1940s (e.g. Bowker 1993; Downey 1998; Haraway 1991; Hayles 1999, 2005; Turkle 2005). One facet of this discussion entails the belief or fear that intelligent machines will replace the human species as the dominant form of life on Earth or, in the case of the Borg, that cybernetic machines will replace all biological life in the galaxy. This worry also appears in other science-fiction works-in the Cybermen in the British series Doctor Who, the Cylons in the television series Battlestar Galactica, and the Terminator in the Terminator movies, to name but a few. The potential extinction-level risks to our species as a whole by developments in fields like Artificial Intelligence and biotechnologies has even been proposed as the focus of a multidisciplinary research center at the University of Cambridge (Price, Rees, and Tallinn 2012). The relationship between humans and machines represents a struggle for dominance and control (as the Borg state to all those they meet: You will be assimilated, resistance is futile), though themes of human resistance against the onslaught of emotionless and tireless machines also abound.Embedded in these nightmares of machine domination and assimilation rests some intriguing ideas about play. If we believe foundational play scholar Johan Huizinga, play suffuses human life. We are Homo ludens in the sense that human play adorns life, amplifies it and is to that extent a necessity both for the individual-as a life function-and for society by reason of the meaning it contains (Huizinga 1980, 9). On the other hand, most scholars see machines as incapable of play, as lacking imagination and human emotion. The Borg embody the threat we perceive in humans' encounters with machines that individuality, emotion, and play will be overtaken by the interface with technology. In the spirit of Donna Haraway's call to take pleasure in the confusion of boundaries among humans and machines, I wish to complicate this ominous polarity between playful humanity and calculating machines by exploring human relationships with machines as we experience them today (Haraway 1991). I consider specifically the role of play in the interaction between humans and computers as it relates to computer programming.We have seen growing interest among those in anthropology and other social-science disciplines in the use of computers for play and gaming (Malaby 2009), and the growth appears especially in online virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft (Bainbridge 2010; Boellstorff 2008; Corneliussen and Rettberg 2008; Dibbell 2006; Nardi 2009) and other digital games such as online chess and poker (Desjarlais 2011; Consalvo 2007; Schull 2005). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,077 | 0,021 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».