MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4311681202 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-15174

It's Dangerous to Go Alone: An Ethnography of Friendship Through Tabletop Gaming Communities of Practice

2022· dissertation· en· W4311681202 sur OpenAlexaff
D Boon

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDigital Games and Media
Établissements canadiensCarleton University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFriendshipAdventureEthnographyNarrativeCraftMeaning (existential)Media studiesSociologyParticipant observationConstruct (python library)PsychologyVisual artsSocial psychologySocial scienceArtAnthropology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

As the world continues to move online in the 21st century, in-person communities of practice continue to thrive in game stores, libraries, campuses, and in personal homes.In these spaces, and many others that are too varied to name, people engage with tabletop roleplaying games as members of groups of adventurers.Individuals come together to create identities, craft narratives, and build connections with one another that continue even after the game ends.This paper examines the ways that these communities of practice are constructed and maintained by the diverse group of individuals who inhabit them, and how they come to construct identities and meaning through their engagement.Over the period of 18 months between 2017 and 2019, participant observation fieldwork was conducted with various tabletop roleplaying game groups across the Ottawa, Ontario area.This took place at game stores, campuses, libraries, people's homes, and restaurants to understand the ways in which people come together in-person to play games such as Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder.Interviews were simultaneously conducted with individuals from these groups to develop life-histories of some of those involved in these communities.with gambling meant that families tended to shy away from them as games for their children however, and instead looked for other games that they could play that would help to reinforce strong Christian morals.14 Parents therefore began to look for board games that provided fun ways for children to learn about morality and modes of being a good member of society.One example of these morality-based games was Mansion of Happiness, which saw players attempting to achieve the highest level of happiness through their performance of morally good deeds.Other games of this era included those focused on education, those that reinforced patriotism, and historical games that helped to teach people of certain important historical events.These were all traditional board games, but rather than using dice as we understand most board games to do now, these games used teetotums (spinning tops with numbers on their sides).At this time dice, similar to playing cards, were associated with gambling, and were therefore examples of immoral behavior that should not be included.It was later in the 19th century that two publishing groups -The Mcgloughlin Publishers and Milton Bradley -moved away from morally oriented games and instead focused on producing games of pure enjoyment.15 This era of game development/publishing began the mass adoption of board games in North America, which continues to be popular to this day.Games such as Candyland, Snakes and Ladders, Life, and Monopoly are among the most popular family board games in North America, and one would be hard pressed to find an adult who has not played, or at least seen, one of these games.These games were all born out of the tradition of familial board games and introduced many generations to tabletop board gaming.This style of gaming, in conjunction with the war and strategy gaming discussed above, creates a history of gaming that we can see to have 14 Whitehill, B., Games of America in the Nineteenth Century.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,020
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,035

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0200,019
Communication savante0,0100,011
Science ouverte0,0030,011
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,050
Tête enseignante GPT0,386
Écart entre enseignants0,336 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetDigital Games and MediaTravaux en français237 207