Learning the Game: Decoding the Differences between Novice and Expert Players in a Citizen Science Game with Millions of Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, video games have surged in popularity, attracting millions of players across platforms. Citizen science games (CSGs) leverage the processing power of gamers to solve computational and scientific problems. Borderlands Science (BLS) is a mini-game within the mass market game Borderlands 3 that turns multiple sequence alignment (MSA) problems into puzzles. Parallel research demonstrated that BLS players outperformed classical approaches solving small sequence alignment tasks. This study aims to analyze the strategical differences in player solutions in BLS as they gain experience. Through the many collected player solutions from players of different experience level, we gained insights into players’ strategies, differences between expert and non-expert players, and how strategies evolve. We developed a Markov chain trained on solutions from players of different experience levels to understand their actions and outcomes. Results indicate that expert players utilize more gaps and achieve more matches, gradually improving and converging toward unique strategies. Our findings reveal distinct and evolving player strategies. For future citizen science projects, it will be important to consider the identification of player strategies and their evolution over time to improve the game design and data processing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".