Science Game Lab: tool for the unification of biomedical games with a purpose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Games with a purpose and other kinds of citizen science initiatives demonstrate great potential for advancing biomedical science and improving STEM education. Articles documenting the success of projects such as Fold.it and Eyewire in high impact journals have raised wide interest in new applications of the distributed human intelligence that these systems have tapped into. However, the path from a good idea to a successful citizen science game remains highly challenging. Apart from the scientific difficulties of identifying suitable problems and appropriate human-powered solutions, the games still need to be created, need to be fun, and need to reach a large audience that remain engaged for the long-term. Here, we describe Science Game Lab (SGL) ( https://sciencegamelab.org ), a platform for bootstrapping the production, facilitating the publication, and boosting both the fun and the value of the user experience for scientific games with a purpose.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.023 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".