Playing with the Kitchen Table: Using persuasive games to promote empathy for persons with anaphylactic food allergies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the design and preliminary experimentation of a tabletop game called Kitchen Table , created to encourage more empathy towards people with severe anaphylactic food allergies. To measure the effectiveness of this game, the study ‘Use of persuasive games to promote empathy for persons with food allergies’ was conducted at the University of Waterloo in collaboration with the Games Institute and Department of Geography and Environmental Management's Genetics, Environment and Therapies: Food Allergy Clinical Tolerance Studies (GET-FACTS) project. This study involved volunteers completing a Likert scale-based pre-playtest questionnaire, playing the game, and then completing a post-playtest questionnaire identical to the original. Their pre-playtest and post-playtest responses were compared to measure the degree to which attitudes changed as a result of playing the game. In the end, the game was demonstrated to encourage more empathy towards people with severe anaphylaxis through the production of emergent narrative from the interaction between the players, the game mechanics and the participatory community experience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it