MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1960740505 · doi:10.1177/1046878115594321

Vital Roux, Forgotten Forerunner of Modern Business Games

2015· article· en· W1960740505 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Léo Touzet, Pierre Corbeil

Bibliographic record

VenueSimulation & Gaming · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsExperiential learningPresentation (obstetrics)Work (physics)Public relationsSociologyEpistemologyPolitical sciencePedagogyPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim. This article presents the pioneering work of Vital Roux, a French businessman and author who proposed, in the 1800s, a teaching method to train business people which closely resembles the experiential method central to today’s business games. Background. This presentation indirectly discusses the fundamental issue of business games’ success as an educational innovation. We recall briefly that the roots of business games are distant, multiple, and far-ranging. Method. The pedagogy advocated by Vital Roux is revealed and innovative aspects of his educational system are noted and discussed. Roux’s obscurity is underlined, and a plausible explanation for the relative failure of his project is proposed. A social and historical hypothesis is then suggested to explain the success which business games have won in the United States a century and a half later. Conclusion.Roux’s key thoughts are summarized, suggesting he can appear as a forgotten forerunner of modern business games.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSimulation & GamingSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207