MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404209711 · doi:10.1002/cyo2.45

Who Speaks Tho Fan? Deconstructing the Constructed Language of <i>Jade Empire</i>

2024· article· en· W4404209711 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alesha Serada

Bibliographic record

VenueCyberOrient · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHong Kong and Taiwan Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJADE (particle detector)EmpireAncient historyHistoryNatural language processingArtLinguisticsPhilosophyComputer sciencePhysicsParticle physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite being the largest East Asian country, China is underrepresented in video games, particularly those produced in the West. This article examines the video game Jade Empire (2005), developed by the acclaimed Canadian studio Bioware. Despite its age and now historical status in video game culture, Jade Empire remains one of the few relatively successful standalone video games based on Chinese culture (or appropriation thereof) created in the West. In addition to the borrowed elements of Chinese culture, the game uniquely introduces its own constructed language, Tho Fan, for world‐building. This article contextualizes this constructed language within the broader scope of constructed languages in Western fantasy and video games in particular, analyzing its creative and communicative potential. My analysis suggests that Tho Fan acts more as a tool of exclusion than of immersion, aligning with postcolonial critiques of video games. Conversely, Tho Fan has subversive potential when viewed as a metaphor for the inability of “the Subaltern” to “speak.” This ultimately presents a paradoxical issue of perceived authenticity in fantasy worlds that inherently defy historical accuracy.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.022
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCyberOrientSame topicHong Kong and Taiwan PoliticsFrench-language works237,207