MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167784807 · doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00983-2

Game of Cruxes: co-designing a game for scientists and stakeholders for identifying joint problems

2021· article· en· W3167784807 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nicolas Salliou, Enora Bruley, Clémence Moreau, Tobias Luthe, Víctor María Fernández Blanco, Sandra Lavorel, Adrienne Grêt‐Regamey

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCampbell Family Mental Health Research InstituteEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichAgence Nationale de la RechercheUniversity of MichiganSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCitizen journalismStakeholderLegitimacyTransdisciplinaritySociologyPublic relationsManagement scienceComputer sciencePolitical scienceSocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scientists increasingly cross their disciplinary boundaries and connect with local stakeholders to jointly solve complex problems. Working with stakeholders means higher legitimacy and supports practical impact of research. Games provide a tool to achieve such transdisciplinary collaboration. In this paper, we explore the use of a game in a participatory project where scientists and local stakeholders are seeking and defining a joint problem. The literature is clear that this step is essential but remains short on concrete methods. Here, we explore this potential in practice. We conducted parallel participatory processes in two alpine regions considered as socio-ecological system (SES) in Switzerland and France, both vulnerable to global change. Based on these two case studies, we co-constructed a game, integrating scientific concerns about key land use, climate change and socio-economic elements of a mountain SES (tourism, agriculture, housing and demography). With the game, we assessed the existence of joint problems connecting scientific and local interests. The game successfully engaged participants at both sites over 11 game sessions, showing potential of use in other transdisciplinary settings. By covering a wide array of issues, the game created a discussion space for listing problems and identifying where scientist and stakeholder interests overlap. In Switzerland, the game revealed no pressing joint problem to be addressed. In France, game sessions revealed, among other problems, an enduring and complex issue regarding the co-existence of inhabitants and powerful institutions. Having demonstrated the capacity of this game for joint-problem assessment, we believe other participatory research in similar SES could benefit from an early use of such an approach to frame the potential for collaboration. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11625-021-00983-2.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.338
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.158 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainability ScienceSame topicInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207