MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405037618 · doi:10.1002/cb.2440

Exploring Avatar Selves in the Metaverse: Consumer Co‐Creation of Experiences

2024· article· en· W4405037618 on OpenAlexaff
Amrita Chakraborty, Varsha Jain, Russell W. Belk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Behaviour · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAvatarMetaverseCo-creationPsychologySocial worldsSociologySocial psychologyComputer scienceBusinessHuman–computer interactionMarketingVirtual reality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This study seeks to understand how metaverse users interact with the platform to co‐create their experiences and shape altered selves through embodied avatars, further influencing their engagement or disengagement within the platform using social constructionism and narrative identity theory. The paper's uniqueness stems from understanding the developing idea of self in the metaverse using netnography and phenomenological semi‐structured interviews. Our research found that co‐creating experiences is an ongoing two‐way exchange between consumers and platforms in a digital space based on three significant parameters: cognitive (experimenting and informative), conative (the sense of presence) and affective (fun and entertaining). Further, an altered self emerges from this process, which leads to consumer engagement or disengagement with the platform. The paper contributes significantly to the literature on the evolving concept of the self in the metaverse.

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)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer BehaviourSame topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207