L’empathie en réalité virtuelle comme posture d’auteur : Une étude québécoise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For certain authors, virtual reality (VR) is an effective media to gain user empathy, in part because of its immersive and interactive properties. How do VR work creators consider empathy? When they seek to stimulate empathy through their works, what mechanisms do they implement? Conversely, do they care little about it or do they reject it categorically? Is there a specifically Québécois use of empathy in virtual-reality creations? The analysis of Québec VR works undertaken to try and answer those questions confirms a definite interest towards empathy in VR, an interest encouraged by funding bodies. Furthermore, two trends can be noted: certain VR authors seek individualized empathy (relating to personal stories), while others pursue non-individualized empathy (relating to a group of people or a human archetype). Our study did not identify specific Québec characteristics for the use of empathy in VR, but does allow us to conclude that empathy in VR is an author’s choice, perhaps even creator posturing, with an ethical purpose.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".