MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087839917 · doi:10.1145/2583008.2583016

Effects of gamification on participation and data quality in a real-world market research domain

2013· article· en· W2087839917 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentCompromiseUser engagementDomain (mathematical analysis)Computer scienceMarket researchQuality (philosophy)Empirical researchSurvey researchData qualityData scienceHuman–computer interactionMarketingWorld Wide WebPsychologyBusinessApplied psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gamification has become an increasingly popular way to improve user engagement and motivation, but there is currently a lack of empirical research to demonstrate that increased gamification provides these benefits. To help address this problem we designed three versions of a gamified market research survey and tested them alongside the established industry standard in a study of over 600 participants. We also highlight examples where game elements compromise respondent data, and provide design solutions that correct the problem without losing the motivational benefits of gamification.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Quick stats

Citations105
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207