Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crowdsourcing has inspired a variety of novel mobile applications. However, identifying common practices across different applications is still challenging. In this paper, we use smart parking as a case study to investigate features of crowdsourcing that may apply to other mobile applications. Based on this we derive principles for efficiently harnessing crowdsourcing. We draw three key guidelines: First, we suggest that that the organizer can play an important role in coordinating participants', a key factor to successful crowdsourcing experience. Second, we suggest that the expected participation rate is a key factor when designing the crowdsourcing system: a system with a lower expected participation rate will place a higher burden in individual participants (e.g., through more complex interfaces that aim to improve the accuracy of the collected data). Finally, we suggest that not only above certain threshold of contributors, a crowdsourcing-based system is resilient to freeriding but, surprisingly, that including freeriders (i.e., actors that do not participate in system effort but share its benefits in terms of coordination) benefits the entire system.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it