Quality and Leniency in Online Collaborative Rating Systems
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
The emerging trend of social information processing has resulted in Web users’ increased reliance on user-generated content contributed by others for information searching and decision making. Rating scores, a form of user-generated content contributed by reviewers in online rating systems, allow users to leverage others’ opinions in the evaluation of objects. In this article, we focus on the problem of summarizing the rating scores given to an object into an overall score that reflects the object’s quality. We observe that the existing approaches for summarizing scores largely ignores the effect of reviewers exercising different standards in assigning scores. Instead of treating all reviewers as equals, our approach models the leniency of reviewers, which refers to the tendency of a reviewer to assign higher scores than other coreviewers. Our approach is underlined by two insights: (1) The leniency of a reviewer depends not only on how the reviewer rates objects, but also on how other reviewers rate those objects and (2) The leniency of a reviewer and the quality of rated objects are mutually dependent. We develop the leniency-aware quality , or LQ model, which solves leniency and quality simultaneously. We introduce both an exact and a ranked solution to the model. Experiments on real-life and synthetic datasets show that LQ is more effective than comparable approaches. LQ is also shown to perform consistently better under different parameter settings.
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