MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500939124 · doi:10.2196/games.4081

Training Vegetable Parenting Practices Through a Mobile Game: Iterative Qualitative Alpha Test

2015· article· en· W1500939124 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leah Brand, Alicia Beltran, Richard Buday, Sheryl O. Hughes, Teresia M. O’Connor, Janice Baranowski, Hafza Dadabhoy, Cassandra S. Diep, Tom Baranowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentAgricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsTest (biology)Alpha (finance)PsychologyMobile appsComputer scienceApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyWorld Wide WebBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vegetable consumption protects against chronic diseases, but many young children do not eat vegetables. One quest within the mobile application Mommio was developed to train mothers of preschoolers in effective vegetable parenting practices, or ways to approach getting their child to eat and enjoy vegetables. A much earlier version of the game, then called Kiddio, was alpha tested previously, but the game has since evolved in key ways. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to alpha test the first quest, substantiate earlier findings and obtain feedback on new game features to develop an effective, compelling parenting game. METHODS: Mothers of preschool children (n=20) played a single quest of Mommio 2 to 4 times, immediately after which a semi-structured interview about their experience was completed. Interviews were transcribed and double coded using thematic analysis methods. RESULTS: Mothers generally liked the game, finding it realistic and engaging. Some participants had difficulties with mechanics for moving around the 3-D environment. Tips and hints were well received, and further expansion and customization were desired. CONCLUSIONS: Earlier findings were supported, though Mommio players reported more enjoyment than Kiddio players. Continued development will include more user-friendly mechanics, customization, opportunities for environment interaction, and food parenting scenarios.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207