MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2287288541

Outbreak: Lessons Learned from Developing a “History Game”

2009· article· en· W2287288541 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin Kee, John Bachynski

Bibliographic record

VenueLoading... · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicComics and Graphic Narratives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Tragedy (event)Game DeveloperVideo game designPublic relationsMedia studiesGame designAdvertisingComputer scienceMultimediaSociologyHistoryPolitical scienceBusinessSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the production of Outbreak, a game focused on the 1885 smallpox epidemic in Montreal. It is a preliminary report on the manner in which, by both theorizing about and building a game, we are responding to some of the questions that have animated the literature on computer games for history. The article begins with a survey of publications by researchers who have studied the capacity of games to support learning, and outlined how these can be used in concert with books and other media. We next provide the context to our project, which was conceived to market a film to be broadcast on television, and support a book on which the film was based – a bestselling history of a preventable tragedy that resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 Montrealers. We outline how we built from the book, creating a game that asked the player to save as many as possible from death, using tools that mimicked that which was available in the late nineteenth century. We conclude by reflecting on the lessons that we learned, and how we will apply these to our present and future projects.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLoading...Same topicComics and Graphic NarrativesFrench-language works237,207