MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W120256896 · doi:10.11575/prism/30340

Games for Learning: Are Schools Ready for What's to Come?

2005· article· en· W120256896 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePromotion (chess)Field (mathematics)MultimediaMathematics educationHuman–computer interactionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Games Studies is still a relatively new field where much basic research remains to be done. This study asks K-12 teachers about their attitudes towards the use of games for teaching, what factors facilitate their use and what barriers exist? Information about attitudes, and what things assist and prevent the adoption of games in the classroom can help identify areas of need for the development of support. Concerns about the state and accessibility of computers in classrooms are known, and may not be addressable by those interested in providing games for learning, bit other factors may be. This study outlines several target areas suitable for further research as well as a few suggestions for approaches that might help in the promotion of games as learning objects.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.318 · 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