Cited by 149Rousseau and Enlightenment ThoughtFrench Literature and CriticismGerman Literature and Culture Studies

Homo Ludens Revisited

Ehrmann, Jacques, Lewis, Cathy, Lewis, Phil·1968·Yale French Studies

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2929664

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • mHealth offers the possibility of incorporating motivational elements such as playfulness and gamification, which is advantageous because humans supposedly learn best by playing.

    “mHealth offers the possibility of incorporating motivational elements such as playfulness and gamification, which is advantageous because humans supposedly learn best by playing [13-17].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ehrmann, J., Lewis, C., & Lewis, P.
Venue
Yale French Studies
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1968
Issue
41
Pages
31
ISSN
0044-0078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2796160258
Cited by
149
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Yale French Studies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Rousseau and Enlightenment Thought
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › French Literature and Criticism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › German Literature and Culture Studies
Keywords
Homo ludens, Johan Huizinga, play, games, play theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review