MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253468963 · doi:10.3138/cras-s034-01-01

American Justice and the First-Person Shooter

2004· article· en· W4253468963 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Paul Budra

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer gameScholarshipEntertainment industryVideo gameEntertainmentGame DeveloperPornographyAdvertisingMultimediaSociologyComputer scienceVisual artsGame designArtLawPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The video- and computer-game industry generated a profit of US$6.35 billion in 2001, earnings greater than those of either Holly- wood films or pornography and, in the entertainment field, second only to those of the music industry. It is estimated that 60 per cent of all Americans regularly play computer or video games;142 per cent of them are women; the median age of gamers is twenty-eight.2 The pro- duction budgets for computer games now regularly run into the tens of millions of dollars, and the creation of a single game may involve a team of designers, actors, programmers, and musicians that rivals in size some film production crews. Despite the scale of this phenome- non, surprisingly little scholarship has been devoted to it. What scholarship there is can be divided into four basic categories: 1. History of Computer Gaming. Electronic games actually date back to 1958. In that year Willy Higginbottom, a technician who had designed circuits for the Manhattan Project, connected an ana- log computer to an oscilloscope and some buttons to create an electronic game of tennis. He did not patent the game. The first successful computer game was created three years later by a group of MIT technicians. Called Spacewar, it crudely simulated a spaceship shooting at enemies. It would eventually find its way into coin-operated arcade consoles. Computer games, then, are over forty years old, but it is only in the past twenty or so years that they have had any cultural profile. There has been lit- tle scholarly attempt to document their history, so most of the work in this category is being done by amateur enthusiasts.3 2. Taxonomy. Computer game enthusiasts and developers have been recognizing, defining, and naming computer game genres for the past ten years or so. "Gamers" (a term I will take to include not only enthusiasts but creators of computer games) ~~ Canadian Review of American Studies/Revue canadienne d'~~tudes am~~ricaines 34, no. 1, 2004now recognize such genres as real-time strategy games, role- playing games, simulation games, and first-person shooter games. Many of these genres have recognized sub-genres. For example, some real-time strategy games are called "god games" because they place the player in a position of detached omnipo- tence. Video games tend to be categorized not by narrative con- tent but by style of game play. A real-time strategy game, then, may be set in outer space, in contemporary Europe, or in medi- eval China; because, in each of these settings, the player controls squadrons of fighters and their military hardware from a detached, third-person perspective, they are all real-time strat- egy games. 3. Socio-psychological Studies. This is the largest category of com- puter-game studies. Sociologists, psychologists, women's stud- ies scholars, media scholars, and innumerable journalists have tried to discern the impact that video-game playing is having upon society. Most often, these studies are analyses of the effects of video-game violence or video-game gender representation on children.4 As early as 1982, the United States surgeon general, Dr. C. Everett Koop, publicly declared that "videogames were evil entities that produced 'aberrations in childhood behaviour'" (Poole 218), though he offered no evidence to support his posi- tion. These studies were given a special urgency after the Col- umbine massacre when it was revealed that the two young men who committed that crime were fans of the first-person shooter game DOOM. There was a Senate inquiry on the subject in the wake of that massacre. 4. Formalist Studies. These look at computer games as a new type of media experience and/or a new form of narrative. Much of this scholarship draws upon theories generated in film and televi- sion studies.5 The most prominent theorists working in it are, perhaps, Steven Poole, author of Trigger Happy, and Mark J.P. Wolf, editor of The Medium of the Video Game.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0300.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207