MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588464012 · doi:10.11575/prism/30338

Games and Learning Styles

2005· article· en· W2588464012 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

VenueOpen MIND · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStyle (visual arts)Learning stylesExperiential learningContext (archaeology)Learning sciencesPsychologyActive learning (machine learning)Computer scienceMathematics educationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several ways to address learning are: 1) through learning theories, 2) through learning styles (treated as distinct from learning theories here), and 3) through instructional design theories and models. This paper looks at the second approach to examine how modern games support various learning styles in their design and gameplay. Four well-known learning style models are examined in the context of computer game design. These are: the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, the Gregory Style Delineator, Felder’s Index of Learning Styles, and Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory. Good, i.e. top-rated games can be shown to incorporate aspects of most, if not all of these, and in this way actively support learners of all learning style preferences.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0180.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.318 · 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