MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617955713 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2017v42n2a3127

Quelles sont les pratiques de jeux numériques des aînés canadiens? Langue, éducation, et contexte social comme facteurs d’usage

2017· article· en· W2617955713 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Emmanuel Duplàa, David Kaufman, Louise Sauvé, Lise Renaud

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessContext (archaeology)PsychologyHumanitiesSociologySocial psychologyGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current context of aging populations, digital games can increase cognitive skills and decrease loneliness among elders. However, it is hard to access data about elders’ uses of digital games. We have administered a survey to 1,208 Canadian elders from British Columbia and Québec. Our findings show that several factors independently influence practices: language, education, social context and to some extent gender. It would be appropriate to develop specific games to change the role of digital games, from being “catalysts for differences among elders” to becoming tools that benefit everyone.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207