MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1016715629 · doi:10.5642/jhummath.201502.03

E-Brock Bugs©: An Epistemic Mathematics Computer Game

2015· article· en· W1016715629 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Broley, Chantal Buteau, E. Müller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Humanistic Mathematics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVideo gameMathematical gameMathematics educationGame art designAvatarComputer scienceVideo game designSelection (genetic algorithm)Ideal (ethics)Combinatorial game theoryVideo game developmentMathematical proofMetagamingGame mechanicsGame designGame theorySequential gameMathematical economicsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMultimediaHuman–computer interactionEpistemologySimultaneous game

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Devlin in [7] argues that video games are an ideal medium for the teaching and learning of mathematics, though he points out that very few ’good’ mathematics video games exist. Building on a probabilistic board game developed in the 1980s, we created a mathematics computer game, E-Brock Bugs. The design of the game carefully follows Devlin’s principles of a good mathematics video game, including a well-developed storyline, the selection of an in-game avatar, and an environment where mathematics arises in a natural and meaningful way. As a result, we argue that E-Brock Bugs is an epistemic computer game [1]; it goes beyond teaching basic facts and skills, and may encourage the players’ development of mathematical thinking as ‘working mathematicians’.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Humanistic MathematicsSame topicMathematics Education and Teaching TechniquesFrench-language works237,207