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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When player skill levels differ widely in a competitive First-Person Shooter (FPS) game, enjoyment suffers: weaker players become frustrated and stronger players become less engaged. Player balancing techniques attempt to assist the weaker player and make games more competitive, but these techniques have limitations for deployment when skill levels vary substantially. We developed new player balancing schemes to deal with a range of FPS skill difference, and tested these techniques in one-on-one deathmatches using a commercial-quality FPS game developed with the UDK engine. Our results showed that the new balancing schemes are extremely effective at balancing, even for players with large skill differences. Surprisingly, the techniques that were most effective at balancing were also rated as most enjoyable by both players -- even though these schemes were the most noticeable. Our study is the first to show that player balancing can work well in realistic FPS games, providing developers with a way to increase the audience for this popular genre. In addition, our results demonstrate the idea that successful balancing is as much about the way the technique is applied as it is about the specific manipulation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it