Exploring Players’ Perspectives: A Comprehensive Topic Modeling Case Study on Elden Ring
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Game reviews heavily influence public perception. User feedback is crucial for developers, offering valuable insights to enhance game quality. In this research, Metacritic game reviews for Elden Ring were analyzed for topic modeling using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT), and a hybrid model combining both to identify effective methods for extracting underlying themes in player feedback. We analyzed and interpreted these models’ outputs to learn the game reviews. We aimed to identify the differences, similarities, and variations between the three to determine which provided more valuable and instructive information. Our findings indicate that each method successfully identified keywords with some similarities in identified words. The LDA model had the highest silhouette score, indicating the most distinct clustering. The LDA-BERT model had a 1% higher coherence score than LDA, indicating more meaningful topics.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it