MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128492208 · doi:10.29173/iasl7594

What do Computer Games have to do with Libraries and Learning?

2021· article· en· W3128492208 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mary O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueIASL Annual Conference Proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationComputer scienceAccreditationMultimediaWork (physics)Game designPsychologyEngineeringMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two teachers have undertaken a project in which year five and six students design computer games and year ten to twelve students build them. The younger students are taught basic flow diagram techniques and thus patterns of logic. They then select a topic of personal interest for their game design. The game is in the form of a quest for the player and must contain material that has been researched using Library resources. The complete, fully documented game designs are passed to the senior Information Technology students who produce them. All students are fully and formally accredited for their work.

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 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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 communication0.0040.003
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIASL Annual Conference ProceedingsSame topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207