MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1509572918 · doi:10.24908/ss.v11i1/2.4454

Gaming the Quantified Self

2013· article· en· W1509572918 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer R. Whitson

Bibliographic record

VenueSurveillance & Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSophisticationComputer scienceFunction (biology)LoyaltySocial mediaDigitizationProcess (computing)Point (geometry)SociologyInternet privacyWorld Wide WebMarketingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By their nature, digital games facilitate surveillance. They allow for the compilation of statistics, internal states, and rules to be recorded, thus hiding many of the internal workings from the players and making the games much more complex. This digitization makes it much easier to collect player data and metrics, and then, as a process of function creep, to use this data in new and innovative ways, such as improving the user experience, or subtly shaping users' in-game desires and behaviours. Increasingly, these practices have moved from non-game spaces into social networking sites and spaces of play.The "gamification" movement is benefiting from the increasing sophistication of such metrics. Gamification combines the playful design and feedback mechanisms from games with users' social profiles (e.g. Facebook, twitter, and LinkedIn) in non-game applications explicitly geared to drive behavioural change (e.g. weight loss, workplace productivity, educational tools, and consumer loyalty). As critics point out, gamified applications rely on the points, leaderboards, and badges often seen in games, but are not games in themselves (Deterding 2010; Bogost 2011). Advocates of the gamification movement - including Al Gore in a recent Games for Change keynote - argue that this monitoring and feedback makes difficult tasks more playful and enjoyable (McGonigal 2011; Gore 2011). However, the marketing and political discourse of using games to change behaviour in positive ways is quite different from messy actualities rooted in advertising, consumption, and intrusive user monitoring. The current potentials to ‘gamify’ life have incited debate on whether the spread of these points based systems heralds playful utopias or dystopic surveillant societies run by corporations and advertisers. This paper highlights the rise of gamification and the implications for surveillance studies. In particular, it focuses on describing the increasingly intrusive monitoring practices are propagated under the banner of fun and play.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.023
Scholarly communication0.0130.011
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
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

Citations296
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurveillance & SocietySame topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207