MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298005935 · doi:10.2196/35907

Points and the Delivery of Gameful Experiences in a Gamified Environment: Framework Development and Case Analysis

2022· article· en· W4298005935 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sungjin Park, Sang‐Kyun Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute for Information and Communications Technology PromotionNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsPoint (geometry)Computer scienceSegmentationHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceData scienceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Points represent one of the most widely used game mechanics in gamification. They have been used as a means to provide feedback to users. They visually show user performance and are used along with other game mechanics to produce synergy effects. However, using points without analyzing the application environment and targets adversely affects users. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the problems that users encounter when points are applied improperly, to solve problems based on an analysis of previous studies and actual point use cases, and to develop a point design framework to deliver gameful experiences. METHODS: Three problems were identified by analyzing previous studies. The first problem is points that only accumulate. The second is points that emphasize a user's difference from other people. The third pertains to the reward distribution problem that occurs when points are used as rewards. RESULTS: We developed a framework by deriving 3 criteria for applying points. The first criterion is based on the passive acquisition approach and the active use approach. The second criterion is used to classify points as "high/low" and "many/few" types. The third criterion is the classification of personal reward points and group reward points based on segmentation of the reward criteria. We developed 8 types of points based on the derived point design framework. CONCLUSIONS: We expect that some of the problems that users experience when using points can be solved. Furthermore, we expect that some of the problems that arise when points are used as rewards, such as pointsification and the overjustification effect, can be solved. By solving such problems, we suggest a direction that enables a gameful experience for point users and improves the core value delivery through gameful experiences. We also suggest a gameful experience delivery method in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207