MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015784978 · doi:10.1525/si.2003.26.2.263

Chess Playing as Strategic Activity

2003· article· en· W2015784978 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSymbolic Interaction · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmateurPerspective (graphical)Action (physics)Style (visual arts)Context (archaeology)Participant observationPsychologyImpression managementSociologySocial psychologyProcess (computing)Computer sciencePolitical scienceSocial scienceArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article takes an interactionist perspective and explores how people engage in strategic activity in the context of a chess game. Based on participant observation in the chess community and interviews with twenty amateur chess players, it examines the most relevant issues to players as they form their lines of action during play. It considers the following dimensions: incorporation of routine activity and style, role taking, impression management, engrossment, and composure. By examining these dimensions, we can gain an understanding of strategic activity as a generic social process. Further, drawing connections from strategic activity in chess to other areas of human group life indicates directions for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.326 · 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