MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510015916 · doi:10.1177/0098628316662758

C’est La Vie! The Game of Social Life

2016· article· en· W2510015916 on OpenAlexaff
Kosha D. Bramesfeld, Arla Good

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching of Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical Race Theory in Education
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersUniversities Space Research Association
KeywordsPrivilege (computing)PsychologySocial psychologyContext (archaeology)IntersectionalityExperiential learningInequalitySociologyGender studiesPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we present the results of two studies that evaluated an experiential intersectionality awareness activity, C’est La Vie: The Game of Social Life. For Study 1 ( N = 55), we content analyzed students’ short answer responses about inequality written before and after playing C’est La Vie. Study 2 compared a C’est La Vie treatment group ( N = 179) to a lecture-as-usual control condition ( N = 64). Across both studies, playing C’est La Vie was associated with an expanded awareness of privilege and structural inequality. Follow-up analyses with a subset of Study 2 control participants ( N = 27) established that participants who were originally in the control group experienced gains in awareness of privilege and structural inequality (relative to pretest and the lecture-as-usual) only after being exposed to C’est La Vie. The results are interpreted within the context of an intersectionality framework.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.427 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeaching of PsychologySame topicCritical Race Theory in EducationFrench-language works237,207