Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce numéro double commémore 10 ans de Sciences du jeu. Ce qui semblait en 2013 une aventure incertaine a trouvé sa place dans le monde de la recherche francophone sur le jeu et a su maintenir un rythme de deux numéros par an. Ce vingtième numéro est donc l’occasion, d’une part, d’analyser la production de ces premières années de la revue et de mesurer la fidélité d’un projet né sous l’auspice de Jacques Henriot et, d’autre part, d’interroger cette production en écho au projet d’un des fondateurs de la recherche française sur le jeu, Roger Caillois. Le numéro donne ensuite la parole à de jeunes chercheurs et chercheuses à travers 15 articles scientifiques qui présentent certaines des perspectives concernant l’avenir de la réflexion sur jeu. Enfin, le numéro se termine avec quatre articles présentant des travaux de recherche-création qui permettent d’affirmer et d’afficher la proximité de la revue avec la conception de jeux. This double issue commemorates 10 years of Sciences du jeu. What seemed in 2013 to be an uncertain adventure has found its place in the world of game and play research, and maintained a rhythm of two issues a year. This twentieth issue provides an opportunity to analyze the journal's output in its early years, and to measure the fidelity of a project born under the auspices of Jacques Henriot. It also examines this output in relation to the project of one of the founders of French research on play and game, Roger Caillois. The issue then gives a voice to young scholars through 15 scientific articles that present some of the prospects for the future of game and play research. Finally, the issue ends with four articles presenting game research-creation projects, affirming the journal's close ties with game design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.010 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".