MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995377177 · doi:10.1177/1555412019893877

Enabled Players: The Value of Accessible Digital Games

2019· article· en· W2995377177 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGames and Culture · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEscapismMainstreamValue (mathematics)Turns, rounds and time-keeping systems in gamesPsychologyGame mechanicsInternet privacySocial psychologyComputer scienceVideo game designMultimediaPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is increasingly recognized that there are many players of mainstream digital games who have some form of disability. It is not known which aspects of games are valued by players, regardless of whether they have a disability. We report on a survey of 71 players from the general game community and 123 players with disabilities asking what makes games important to them. We found established motivations to play such as social connection and escapism but additionally that players find games beneficial and provide artistic experiences. Players with disabilities explicitly referred to games helping them to feel enabled or being on a level footing with nondisabled players. The value of accessible games is not just mere play but playing the same games as everyone else. This implies that achieving accessibility through adapting games is an important approach to provide the valued connection and enablement that games provide.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.251 · 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