MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018794330 · doi:10.1386/vcr_00014_1

Game sketching: Exploring approaches to research-creation for games

2020· article· en· W3018794330 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

VenueVirtual Creativity · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsOntario College of Art and Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Game mechanicsGame designGame studiesVideo game designGame DeveloperMeaning (existential)Context (archaeology)EntertainmentFutures contractMetagamingGame art designSociologyComputer scienceVideo game developmentMultimediaMedia studiesNon-cooperative gameEpistemologyGame theoryVisual artsSocial scienceArtBusinessSimultaneous gameMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital games are a critical form in which makers express models of play that create meaning beyond entertainment. Game culture is pervasive and amidst a wider technological context that invites all our active participation provides one setting for creative self-expression. Games collapse the distance between makers and players in a uniquely active manner and whilst this paper centers on possibilities for game making, all players co-create their own gameplay experience, which holds potential for enacting individual agency. Based on experience introducing game design and development education at an art and design university over the past decade as part of the Digital Futures programme, this paper develops some early discussions around the concept of game sketching to both pedagogic and research-creation ends.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.669
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.226 · 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