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

Can Deep Learning Predict Problematic Gaming?

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

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

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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