António Guilherme Correia

Abstract
As competitive and cooperative dynamics gain prominence in games, they present unique opportunities to study player behavior. This paper explores the orientations of different player types, as categorized by Bartles Taxonomy, through the lens of a Game With A Purpose (GWAP) called BartleZ. Bartle's Taxonomy identifies four distinct player types Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers. This study delves into how these different types approach competitive and cooperative gameplay, through structured dilemmas in BartleZ. Results with 45 participants, reveal that player orientations significantly influence engagement and decision-making. Achievers balanced both strategies; Explorers favored cooperation; Socializers consistently chose cooperation; and Killers preferred competition but adapted in some contexts. Overall, players leaned toward cooperation early on, with a shift toward competition as complexity increased. Our findings pinpoint the importance of tailoring GWAP mechanics with diverse player motivations, enhancing both engagement and problem-solving effectiveness.

Abstract
The use of gamified crowdsourcing mechanisms through serious games and games with a purpose (GWAPs) has emerged as an effective motivational strategy for enhancing performance in human intelligence tasks (HITs). In this systematic literature review, we examine the underlying characteristics of competitive and cooperative player-oriented GWAPs and how they can be leveraged to optimize crowdsourcing performance in completing batches of HITs. By exploring gamified crowdsourcing elements in GWAPs, we can evaluate the impact of these two types of player behaviors (i.e., competition and cooperation) on motivation and performance. We reviewed 27 publications and grouped them into five categories: player orientation, game elements and motivation, crowd work optimization, gamified knowledge collection, and comparative studies and best practices. Our research pinpoints the significance of intuitive task instructions, alignment of game elements with player motivations, and the role of competitive and cooperative dynamics in enhancing engagement and performance.

Abstract

Abstract
Abstract Some performance-based research funding systems rely on expert-assigned journal rankings to allocate resources and guide research evaluation. In Finland, the JuFo system provides journal rankings, determined by experts who assess journals using available metadata, such as bibliometric indicators, alongside qualitative judgment. While prior work has explored machine learning approaches to approximate these rankings, the recent emergence of large language models (LLMs) offers new possibilities for automated, data-driven evaluation. In this study, we examine how well LLMs can replicate JuFo rankings when given the same structured information available to experts, including citation metrics, disciplinary assignments, and publisher metadata. We systematically compare LLM predictions to expert-assigned JuFo ranks using a confusion-matrix analysis to identify cases of alignment and deviation. Our research addresses two key questions: (1) how accurately LLMs estimate journal rankings, and (2) in which situations their predictions diverge from expert judgments and which factors explain these discrepancies. Our findings show that LLMs approximate expert-assigned rankings with high overall accuracy, with most errors occurring between adjacent levels. However, their performance varies systematically across disciplines, and they tend to under-predict top-tier journals, particularly in social sciences and humanities fields.

Abstract