Eudaimonia and Hedonia in the Design and Evaluation of a Cooperative Game for Psychosocial Well-Being
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
An extended design and evaluation framework of eudaimonia (personal growth, expressiveness) and hedonia (pleasure, comfort) was applied to a cooperative game for older adults who rely on power mobility. The purpose was to address two psychosocial well-being needs (perceptions of performance mastery and empathy enhancement) through a game with an interaction format that augments the experience of powered chair use: mixed reality with power mobility-based interaction and movement. Two versions of the game—one in a mixed reality format and one without—were created to evaluate the efficacy of using this framework and explore relevant user experience factors. Qualitative findings suggest that the mixed reality version of the game elicited eudaimonic experiences, where the older adult participants who were typically reliant on power mobility perceived a positive change in performance mastery while their partners, who were not reliant on power mobility developed a greater appreciation for everyday powered chair use. Further, a role reversal, where the elders took on a ‘caregiving’ role in the context of powered chair expertise, was observed. Moreover, inferential findings showed evidence of a predictive relationship between hedonic and eudaimonic orientations, psychological well-being, and game engagement, regardless of age, disability status, and game version.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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