Bibliographic record
Abstract
La technologie est au cœur du discours sur l’évolution des jeux ; des jeux vidéo, en premier lieu, mais également de nombreux sports. Les études du jeu actuelles ne rendent pourtant pas bien compte des interactions entre design de jeu et technologie. Cette dernière est généralement réduite aux notions de média ou de plateforme, qui impliquent des artefacts standardisés médiatisant des structures de jeux abstraites. Un tel point de vue ne rend compte ni de l’influence rétroactive du design de jeu sur la technologie, ni de la matérialité du processus de design, ni de la mobilisation de la technologie par les joueurs. Dans cet article nous proposons un modèle d’une plus fine granularité, mettant en lumière les rapports dynamiques entre design de jeu, technologie et le jeu (play) des joueurs. Ce modèle est fondé sur une méta-analyse historique de l’évolution de plusieurs jeux numériques et non-numériques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".