MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7105823618 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v27i6.7948

The Games AIs Play - A Comprehensive Review

2025· article· W7105823618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Strategic managementStrategic planningBusiness managementBusiness model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Competitive games have long served as structured and measurable testing grounds for AI research. Many foundational AI innovations emerged from efforts to achieve superhuman performance in domains including board games (Chess, Go), knowledge-based competitions (Jeopardy), and real-time strategy games (StarCraft, Diplomacy). The evolution of AI in games offers valuable lessons for business applications, particularly in decision-making, strategic planning, and automation. However, much of the research in this area is found in technical publications and pre-print repositories, with limited engagement from business scholars. This paper synthesizes key developments in AI applied to games, highlighting their technological evolution and drawing insights relevant to business applications.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207