The Relationship Between Gamification User Types, Demographic Factors, and Gaming Habits
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
Understanding users and consequent personalization opportunities have become a major area of interest in gamification and UX research. Currently, personalization is mainly based on player typologies, which might give a partial picture of the plethora of user attributes. Addressing this challenge, in this study, we investigate the connections of the Hexad gamification user types, demographic factors, and gaming habits to understand how different user factors are related. Our results indicated significant but weak associations between user types and demographic factors and no significant association with gaming frequency-related factors. These results suggest that researchers and designers might need to consider more than the dominant factors to create personalized environments. We also provide exploratory suggestions on possible strategies to personalize gamification based on Hexad and other user factors. Our study contributes to the fields of user modeling and gamification, providing new insights into how different user characteristics are related while opening space for the conduction of new studies in the field.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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