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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Players are increasingly viewing games as a social medium to form and enact friendships; however, we currently have little empirically-informed understanding of how to design games that satisfy the social needs of players. We investigate how in-game friendships develop, and how they affect well-being. We deployed an online survey (N= 234) measuring the properties of games and social capital that participants experience within their gaming community, alongside indicators of the social aspects of their psychological wellbeing (loneliness, need satisfaction of relatedness). First, our findings highlight two strong predictors of in-game social capital: interdependence and toxicity, whereas cooperation appears to be less crucial than common wisdom suggests. Second, we demonstrate how in-game social capital is associated with reduced feelings of loneliness and increased satisfaction of relatedness. Our findings suggest that social capital in games is strongly and positively related to players' psychological well-being. The present study informs both the design of social games as well as our theoretical understanding of in-game relationships.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it