MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281960283 · doi:10.1080/15295036.2022.2075025

“The future of media studies is game studies”

2022· article· en· W4281960283 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Studies in Media Communication · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGame studiesVariety (cybernetics)Video gameTechnological convergenceSociologyConvergence (economics)Mass mediaNew mediaGame theoryComputer scienceMedia studiesMultimediaAdvertisingWorld Wide WebBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Game studies, as a subfield of media and/or communication studies, has occupied an odd place within critical media studies. Those who are invested in critical theory of video game studies understand the importance of the subfield, those who do not study or play video games tend to think of the topic as “other”—as distinct from other theoretical compartments of media studies work. Yet, as the games scholars in this invited issue explain, games are now a central component in the convergence of media content, media platforms and technologies, and media audiences. Theories and methods that help us understand games and their culture are therefore increasingly relevant to understanding wider media production and use. The goal with this special issue, therefore, was to offer a variety of approaches and specifics that would be helpful to scholars both within and beyond game studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.321 · 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