MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041976476 · doi:10.1145/1228175.1228213

Factoring culture into the design of a persuasive game

2006· article· en· W2041976476 on OpenAlexaff
Rilla Khaled, Pippin Barr, Ronald Fischer, James Noble, Robert Biddle

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersuasionPerceptionIndigenousOrder (exchange)FactoringAdvertisingComputer sciencePsychologyPublic relationsMedia studiesSociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preliminary studies indicate that games can be effective vehicles for persuasion. In order to have a better chance at persuading target audiences, however, we claim that it is best to design with the background culture of the intended audience in mind. In this paper, we share our insights into the differences of perception between New Zealand (NZ) Europeans and Maori (the indigenous people of NZ), regarding smoking, smoking cessation, and social marketing. Based on our findings, we discuss how we have designed two different versions of culturallyrelevant persuasive game about smoking cessation, one aimed at a NZ European audience, the other aimed at a Maori audience.

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 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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations49
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207