MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145152087 · doi:10.1177/1555412012473364

<i>Adventure</i> Before Adventure Games

2013· article· en· W2145152087 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

VenueGames and Culture · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdventureVideo gameFantasyContext (archaeology)Game mechanicsVideo game cultureAction (physics)Video game designGame studiesSociologyVisual artsComputer scienceArtMedia studiesMultimediaTurns, rounds and time-keeping systems in gamesHistoryLiteratureArt historyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The original Adventure by Crowther and Woods (1977) has an important place in computer game history. It is not only considered the first adventure game but also the ancestor of interactive fiction, point-and-click games, action adventures, and even massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Adventure often defined in terms of categories that did not exist at the time of its making. The concept of video games as the cultural institution we know today was alien to its authors. This article reframes Adventure in its historical context. If it is not yet an adventure game, what is it? The proposed methodology is inspired by the work of early cinema historians and consists of identifying the cultural practices within which an early piece was developed. Adventure is analyzed as a program, a hack, fantasy role-playing, a cave survey, and a game. This approach delivers a new perspective on Adventure, freed to some degree of teleological preconceptions.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.235 · 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