MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094342878 · doi:10.1109/cog47356.2020.9231887

Can Deep Learning Predict Problematic Gaming?

2020· article· en· W3094342878 on OpenAlexaff
Qirui Wu, Jacques Carette

Bibliographic record

Venue2020 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGambling Behavior and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFocus (optics)Deep learningArtificial intelligenceBalance (ability)Machine learningClass (philosophy)Data sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How does one build a healthy gaming ecosystem? Recent evidence clearly demonstrates the existence of problematic gaming [1]. Predicting problematic gaming is still in its infancy. Here we focus on excessive gaming and model in-game behaviour as a means to continuously predict future play time. This can be used to help players maintain a healthy balance between the virtual and real worlds. To do this, we convert game log data into time-series and label such data with criteria of problematic gaming. Deep learning is then used to solve the resulting multi-class classification problem.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2020 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG)Same topicGambling Behavior and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207