MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531478191 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2015.193

Computational Analysis of Collective Intelligence in Conversational Text

2015· article· en· W1531478191 on OpenAlexaff
Taraneh Khazaei, Lu Xiao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective intelligenceComputer scienceIntelligence analysisSet (abstract data type)Web intelligenceData scienceComputational intelligenceQuality (philosophy)World Wide WebThe InternetArtificial intelligenceEpistemologyWeb modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collective intelligence refers to the intelligence that emerges from local interactions among individual people. In the last few decades, Web 2.0 technologies have enabled new forms of collective intelligence that allow massive numbers of loosely organized individuals to interact and create high quality intellectual artifacts. In computer and information science disciplines, automated computational methods are developed to analyze Web-based collective intelligence and the factors that may influence the phenomenon. To set the research agenda in this direction, we reviewed the relevant studies focusing on those that analyzed different aspects of discourse-centric collective intelligence. We present here our review results, the identified gaps, and our suggested directions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207