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
2005-2007 was a unique moment in games studies in that it represented a flourishing of specific venues for research in the area, including the launch of the journals Games and Culture and Loading…. The Canadian Journal of Game Studies as well as the Canadian Games Game Studies Association conference. But despite the spike in scholarly and public attention on games in the last decade and a half, we still see moments where researchers seek game studies and proclaim that ‘there’s nothing written about it’. In this article I consider the role of Canadian game studies and its relative lack of citation. The disciplinary ghosts of game studies, I argue, play a key role in entrenching some approaches, questions, and methods as more legitimate, ‘ghosting’ others from the ‘canon’. Troublingly, this continues to include critical race studies, feminist approaches, and queer theory, despite their key role in both historical and contemporary game studies. I therefore conclude this essay with a provocation inspired by Harrison (2018) to ‘fuck the canon’ in games.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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