MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943511123

The Real-World Impacts of Woodcutting in Old School RuneScape

2019· article· en· W2943511123 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Chan, Rajvir Singh Flora

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interdisciplinary Science Topics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)ForestryGeographyMathematicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper looks at the process of achieving a maximum woodcutting level (99) within the game Old School RuneScape (OSRS) and looks at the potential effects if these actions occurred in real life. An assumption made is that only teak trees are cut, as this is the most prevalent type of tree cut within the game while levelling up. The value obtained is 153,082 teak logs per player. Then the conversion between logs obtained in the game to real-life trees is calculated to be 8 logs for each real-life tree. Using real-world values from teak farms, it is found that 172,224 m 2 of space and 19,136 teak trees are needed for one player to achieve level 99. The potential consequences of these actions are discussed in the case that every single account with level 99 woodcutting within OSRS completed a similar process in real life. The potential result is that 14.7% of the world’s teak farms would need to be cut and the carbon storage of these trees can be compared to the addition of 1,009,200 cars over 10 years, approximately 3.2% of the total cars in the UK.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interdisciplinary Science TopicsSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207