MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366505085 · doi:10.33063/ijrp.vi8.259

Year Zero Economics - Using Edu-Larping to Explore Economic Systems in the Ninth Grade

2018· article· en· W4366505085 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ken Koziej, Mikael Hellström

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Role-Playing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumUnit (ring theory)Mathematics educationCurriculumSubject (documents)Subject matterSupervisorComputer sciencePsychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The curriculum of the province of Alberta, Canada, stipulates that grade nine students learn about economics, comparing the United States and Canada (Alberta Education 2007). Supervisor Ken Koziej assigned Mikael Hellström to teach this unit to three grade nine classes during his practicum. Hellström had pioneered the use of edu-larps, game-based learning, and gamification as a sessional instructor at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary (Hellström 2016; 2017) and chose those methods to deliver the unit. The game design for the tabletop role-playing game Mutant: Year Zero (The Free League 2015) incorporates mechanics for play on three levels: character, for world exploration; resource extraction and world exploration; and base building. The latter two levels effectively create an in-game economy. Collaborating with his supervisor, Hellström adapted them for classroom use. The goal was to create a unit fulfilling Mochocki’s (2014) criteria for edu-larp, in other words, that it is a) mono-disciplinary and targets a single school subject; b) knowledge-oriented and communicates textbook subject matter to students; and c) teacher-friendly, by not demanding time-consuming preparations. This paper describes the unit, the process of converting elements of Mutant: Year Zero for teaching, how students played the unit, and the post-game evaluation. While the unit did not fulfill all of Mochocki’s criteria, student engagement was high, consistent with previous findings on game-based learning (Prensky 2005; Gee 2007; Hattie 2009).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Role-PlayingSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207