Bibliographic record
Abstract
Henry Jenkins is Provost Professor of Communication, Journalism, Cinematic Arts and Education at the University of Southern California—or as he likes to put it, “Professor of Miscellaneous Studies” or just “media scholar at USC.” A prolific author, Jenkins has author and editor more than 20 books including Textual Poachers, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, Fans, Gamers, Bloggers, and most recently, Comics and Stuff in addition to hundreds of articles on a variety all sorts of pop culture and digital culture subjects, looking at fan communities, comics, the internet, film, and much more, including a very active period working on video games, writing well-known and well-cited pieces such as “Games as Narrative Architecture,” “Games: The New Lively Art,” and “Popular Culture as Politics, Politics as Popular Culture.” Jenkins, however, no longer considers himself a game scholar—an interesting distinction. This raises the question, “what does it mean to do game studies?,” in this interview Jenkins and I discuss the roots of game studies as an area of study and its development into a unique and sometimes baffling field. Reflecting on his journey through the development of the field, Jenkins describes the spaces of game studies as they were shifting from an area closely aligned with industry and popular culture towards a more isolated academic field pushed away from development spaces. From the sparking of his interest in play and spatial properties of games, to his defense of video games in front of the US Senate, to his scapegoated position in the ludology/narratology debate, Jenkins has seen the field from many perspectives—most importantly, he sees the field from outside of it now.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.046 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".