MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312495804 · doi:10.1145/3555858.3555873

Exploring the Influence of Demographic Factors on Progression and Playtime in Educational Games

2022· article· en· W4312495804 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Amogh Joshi, Christos Mousas, D. Fox Harrell, Dominic Kao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEthnic groupDiversity (politics)Educational gameFace (sociological concept)Equity (law)PsychologyComputer scienceMultimediaMathematics educationSociologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Games are now ubiquitous, and educational games are becoming increasingly prevalent. Like other games, educational video games attract participants from different ethnicities and with different gender expressions. As such, educational game designers face a necessity to develop inclusive games. In this paper, we focus on inclusivity, diversity, and equity (DEI) issues by investigating if the computer programming game Mazzy benefited participants from broad demographic backgrounds. We highlight inclusive features present in Mazzy, and, focusing on the participants’ self-reported gender and race/ethnicity, reflect on their play experience and learning outcomes. We found evidence that the game supported learning outcomes and facilitated an engaging play experience for participants from diverse demographic backgrounds. We discuss challenges and implications for the broader literature.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207