An inquiry into the factors that impact on consumer appreciation of a board game
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Board games such as Monopoly and Scrabble enjoy a great deal of popularity among players of all ages. The objective of this study was to identify the characteristics of board games that impact significantly on players' appreciation. Design/methodology/ approach A review of the literature and a qualitative study with players and board game professionals resulted in the identification of seven explanatory factors. A survey was conducted among 169 adult players selected using an area sampling method. Findings The survey results revealed that the most important factor in explaining players' appreciation of a board game was the extent to which the game was able to make them fantasize and live uncommon experiences. The second factor in importance was the entertainment that is associated with playing a game. Some unexpected differences were found between male and female players. Whereas the surprise elements of a game had a positive impact on men's appreciation, they were not significant among women. In turn, the rhythm of the game had a positive effect on women's appreciation whereas it did not impact on men's appreciation. Research limitations/implications Players' perceptions were limited to board games with which they were familiar. Practical implications The results of this research offer some insights for the design and marketing of new board games. They indicate that the success of a new board game depends on the game's capacity to make players live a unique play experience and interact with other players. They also suggest that marketing communication should be adapted to the segments of male and female board game players. Originality/value This research brings useful knowledge about the factors that make consumers enjoy a board game.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it