MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298283407 · doi:10.25071/1913-5874/37384

Play: A Framework for Design, Development, and Gamification

2014· article· en· W4298283407 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

VenueInTensions · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthosAmbiguityCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Computer scienceKey (lock)MoodProcess (computing)PsychologyHuman–computer interactionSocial psychologyEpistemologyCommunicationLinguisticsMathematicsComputer securityPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a model of play to distinguish the ethos of activities as part of a continuum between play, games, work, and threat. The key to determining the ethos of an activity is the discourse of the activity, and how an activity is communicated as a message (process & content of communication), the mood of the communication (how it should be interpreted), and consequence (what is at stake). These three discourse categories can be binaries, and presented as a spectrum based upon: coherence and ambiguity. The proposed model suggests that play can be measured across three axes presented as binaries based upon the degree of coherence and ambiguity. This model frames a method for distinguishing and designing for play in any medium.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.278 · 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