MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548088024 · doi:10.1109/gem.2015.7377222

Pushing without breaking: Nudging exergame players while maintaining immersion

2015· article· en· W2548088024 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian L. Jessup Schneider, T.C. Nicholas Graham

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmersion (mathematics)Nudge theoryHuman–computer interactionSet (abstract data type)Game playComputer sciencePsychologySimulationSocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In exergames, players sometimes over-exert themselves, risking adverse health effects. Informing such players to slow down is necessary, but might distract from gameplay and damage the drive to continue exercising. We used the concept of nudges to create a set of design principles that can be incorporated into a game, to influence player behaviour without breaking their immersion. We created a game that uses these principles, testing them against no feedback at all, and against a precise text-based interface. We found that nudging techniques worked as well as textual feedback to keep players from over-exerting. We saw no significant difference in immersion between nudge and textual feedback, but players considered the nudge feedback to be more natural.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.277 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207