MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042283221 · doi:10.1145/1639601.1639607

Distinguishing games, serious games, and training simulators on the basis of intent

2009· article· en· W2042283221 on OpenAlexaff
Hannah Johnston, Anthony Whitehead

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosenessComputer sciencePoint (geometry)Basis (linear algebra)Human–computer interactionTraining (meteorology)Game mechanicsVideo game designMultimediaSimulationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What's the difference between a game, a serious game and a training simulator? Unfortunately we don't have a zippy punch line for you, but in this work we present a means to segregate the three on the basis of user intent and the closeness to their reality, rather than the intent of the designer. We use analogies to older educational media and their classification to illustrate our point.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207