MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406034156 · doi:10.7557/23.7959

Who cares about esports?

2024· article· en· W4406034156 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEludamos Journal for Computer Game Culture · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSociologyMultimediaPsychologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meant as both a provocation and a prompt, ‘who cares about esports?’ opens the topic up to critical scrutiny at a time when the esports industry is in the midst of a(nother) serious contraction, even as there is a sizeable jump in the breadth and amount of esports research. As the introduction to this special section on Sustaining Equitable Competitive Gaming, this article considers the interplay of these two transformations, while also opening up a third, vital line of inquiry: ‘who cares for competitive gaming?’ This question is meant, on the one hand, to underscore the difference—and the relationship—between competitive gaming and esports, while also providing an overview of the kinds of critical and timely care documented by the four articles in this special section.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.309 · 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