MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029018861 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n7p91

Using Crowdsourcing to Expand the Resource Base of Business

2015· article· en· W2029018861 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Елена Борисовна Гаффорова, Natalia Merkushova, Vladimir Smirnov, V. N. Batalova, Yulia Merkushova

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsourcingResource (disambiguation)Base (topology)Knowledge managementComputer scienceBusinessData scienceWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article shows the essence of crowdsourcing as a modern management technology, as the basis for innovativebusiness models and as a way of expanding the resource base of business. It figures out the structural elements ofcrowdsourcing, the advantages and disadvantages of crowdsourcing and problems associated with the use ofcrowdsourcing technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0020.017
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicOpen Source Software InnovationsFrench-language works237,207