Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visualization techniques can facilitate the understanding and exploration of relationships in usertesting data. For example, data from players' in-game movement can be combined with interview data or questionnaire results. However, the process of amalgamation is not straightforward, because the underlying data often exists in different formats. Another challenge is making these visualizations simple enough to provide a quick overview for producers, but also detailed enough to be usable and practical for gameplay programmers. Although various visualization techniques have already been introduced in this domain, most of these techniques focus on displaying large amounts of quantitative telemetry data without integrating qualitative or contextual data on player experience. Moreover, most of the current visualizations are static representations of usertesting data, so they cannot dynamically adjust to users' (e.g. producers, programmers) needs. Hence, there is a need for an interactive visualization tool that can adjust data representation based on the nature and detail level of data required from different members of a development team. This paper reports our current development efforts on a tool that assists data collection and provides a dynamic and interactive representation of usertesting data. We also report two initial studies to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool with game developers to guide our future development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.608 | 0.313 |
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".