MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320206205 · doi:10.1177/1555412015580016

Mapping Metroid

2015· article· en· W2320206205 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 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffordanceAvatarGame studiesAgency (philosophy)StorytellingSubjectivitySociologyPostmodernismAestheticsMovie theaterVideo gameEpistemologyMedia studiesPsychologyComputer scienceVisual artsArtNarrativeMultimediaHuman–computer interactionSocial scienceCognitive psychologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metroid: Other M, the latest game in the Metroid series, was heavily criticized for the contradictory portrayal of its avatar protagonist, Samus Aran. This article analyzes these critiques within the 25-year history of the Metroid series, noting intersections with literary theory, cognitive science, geography, and cinema. “Mapping Metroid” argues that player dissatisfaction is a result of Other M’s inconsistency in balancing gameplay constraints with player agency, and the game’s failure at “imperative” storytelling. The maps in Other M and its predecessors are treated in depth, since the relationship between cartographic and gameworld spaces must be “read” dynamically by players to progress; these maps reflect the affordances of each game, and how those affordances contribute to player enjoyment or frustration. The article concludes with the suggestion that paying attention to signifying spaces may help design better games and help situate video games within a wider discussion of theories of postmodern subjectivity.

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 score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.253 · 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