MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136305251

Visualizing “Cognitive Fingerprints” from Simple Mobile Game Play

2019· article· en· W3136305251 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Gutenschwager, Kyle Leduc-McNiven, Mahmood McLeod, R.D. McLeod, Marcia Friesen

Bibliographic record

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionComputer scienceScope (computer science)VisualizationCognitive impairmentAnalyticsIntervention (counseling)PsychologyApplied psychologyCognitive psychologyData scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Serious Games and associated data analytics of-fer the potential of a complementary means of detecting early signs of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), which is often a pre-cursor to more serious forms of dementias. As with all diseases and illnesses, the ability to mitigate the impact of the illness is directly correlated to early detection and intervention. In this work, a representative serious game is used to capture a “cogni-tive fingerprint” of a person’s play, which is then used to ana-lyze and visualize play. The long-term objective of the research is to demonstrate that data collected from serious games may be used to detect cognitive difficulties that may be pre-sympto-matic, and outside the scope of normal age related cognitive de-cline. The present work assesses the viability of the platform for this purpose and opportunities in data visualization, but does not include clinical testing for MCI.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMBES ProceedingsSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207