MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042952059 · doi:10.1177/1461444820941381

Betting on DOTA 2’s Battle Pass: Gamblification and productivity in play

2020· article· en· W3042952059 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Media & Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Economy and Work Transformation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBattleCorporationAgile software developmentProductivityRhetorical questionCitizen journalismKey (lock)Computer scienceBusinessHistoryComputer securityEconomicsLinguisticsPhilosophyWorld Wide WebSoftware engineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transformation of games with the advent of platformized distribution systems continues to produce new and agile forms of consumption and exploitation. Valve Corporation’s DOTA 2 is a key example of a gaming space that is constantly atomized and rebuilt with the aim of optimizing player participation. This participatory form is ever-more gamblified and framed by systems designed to habituate players to a new form of consumption. This article explores how DOTA 2 transforms every year with the advent of a yearly Battle Pass, brimming with gambling systems aimed at eliciting specific forms of user participation. We catalog and schematize these systems with the aim of shedding light on the inner workings of DOTA 2 during this season. The purpose of our work is to move the discussion beyond a regulatory focus on symptomatic loot boxes and toward a deeper understanding of the rhetorical systems hiding beneath game systems.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.227 · 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