MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756112388 · doi:10.1177/028072701603400205

Stop Disasters 2.0: Video Games as Tools for Disaster Risk Reduction

2016· article· en· W2756112388 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anthony Viennaminovich Gampell, JC Gaillard

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamDisaster risk reductionTypologyContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Public relationsPolitical scienceDisaster responseDisaster mitigationBusinessEmergency managementSociologyGeographyEnvironmental planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasingly, international organisations (e.g. UNESCO, UNISDR), governments (e.g. Canada), and non-government organisations (NGOs) (e.g. Save the Children, Christian Aid) and researchers use video games to raise disaster and disaster risk reduction (DRR) awareness. Yet, there is a paucity of studies on these games in the disaster literature. This article presents a typology specifically designed to deconstruct both disaster awareness building and mainstream disaster orientated video games, identifying how games like Stop Disasters, Disaster Watch, Inside Haiti, Earthquake Response, Fallout and SimCity instil disaster awareness, portray hazards, vulnerabilities, capacities, disasters and DRR. The article also touches upon ideas of game content, player motivation, skill building and social interaction in the context of disaster themed video games. The findings suggest video games have the potential to be positive tools to reinforce messages surrounding DRR, though further research is necessary. This article sets an agenda for future research.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations35
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mass Emergencies & DisastersSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207