Role-Playing Games in Cybercartography: Multiple Perspectives and Critical Thinking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the use of computer games in cybercartography and how computer game characteristics can enhance the design of cybercartographic products. We focus on investigating multiple perspectives through role play in a geospatial virtual environment. The ways in which literature and film support multiple perspectives can guide us in our design efforts for developing cybercatographic atlases. We explore the potential of games for presenting multiple points of view in an environmental context through the modification of an existing computer game that includes quest narratives and character interaction as well as role play. Active engagement with different characters and the environment in role-playing games encourages exploration and learning, and these interactions give a player the opportunity to discover diverse points of view and develop different ways of solving problems. Multiple points of view in cybercartography can offer a plurality of voices on critical issues. In particular, information presented in maps can stimulate ideas and encourage critical thinking. This leads us to conclude that the engaging and emotional dimensions of computer games can be combined with the multiple perspectives they offer to attract new atlas users and to provide them with a more critical perspective on geographic and environmental information.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".