MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403762898 · doi:10.3390/mti8110095

Current State of Serious Games in Human Trafficking: Evaluation, Gaps, and Future Research Directions

2024· article· en· W4403762898 on OpenAlexaff
Fakhroddin Noorbehbahani, K. H. Fung, Kiemute Oyibo

Bibliographic record

VenueMultimodal Technologies and Interaction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)Current (fluid)Human traffickingPolitical sciencePsychologyCriminologyComputer scienceEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Addressing human trafficking is crucial due to its severe impact on human rights, dignity, and well-being. Serious games refer to digital games that are designed to entertain while also accomplishing at least one additional objective, such as learning or health promotion. Serious games play a significant role in raising awareness, training professionals, fostering empathy, and advocating for policy improvements related to human trafficking. In this study, we systematically examine and assess the current landscape of serious games addressing human trafficking to unveil the existing state, pinpoint gaps, and propose future research avenues. Our investigation encompassed academic publications, gray literature, and commercial games related to human trafficking. Furthermore, we conducted a thorough review of evaluation criteria and heuristics for the comprehensive assessment of serious games. Subsequently, incorporating these evaluation metrics and heuristics, the games were subjected to evaluation by both players and experts. Following a combined qualitative and quantitative analysis, the results were deliberated upon, and their implications were expounded. Five serious games related to human trafficking were identified and evaluated using the SGES and EGameFlow scales, along with both game-specific and serious game heuristics. Player and expert evaluations ranked “(Un)TRAFFICKED” and “Missing” as the best-performing games, while “SAFE Travel” received the lowest ratings. Players generally rated the games higher than experts, particularly in usability, feedback, and goal clarity, although the games scored poorly in audiovisual quality and relevance. Experts highlighted deficiencies in motivation, challenge, and learning outcomes. The lack of personalization and the absence of social gaming elements point to the need for more targeted human trafficking games adapted to different demographics, cultures, and player types.

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)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.254
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.254
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0150.012
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultimodal Technologies and InteractionSame topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207