Designing and deploying a ‘compact’ crowdsourcing infrastructure: A case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Web 2.0 phenomenon of ‘crowdsourcing’ is now an accepted means of enabling ‘democratic’ content creation and the validation and authorization of content online. However, the technical implementation of crowdsourcing systems is not without its challenges. Systems designed to accommodate extremely large crowds are easier to equip with techniques that exploit the signal to noise ratio to derive useful output. For smaller groups it is often less a matter of filtering out noise and more a matter of filtering out single voices clamouring to dominate discussion through barnstorming tactics or system circumvention. This article discusses and analyses a case study focused on the design and deployment of a ‘compact’ crowdsourcing infrastructure, a design specifically intended to subvert and overcome the shortcomings of applying well-proven large-scale collaborative methods to a recognizably smaller group.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".