MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405167433

Crowdsourcing elicitation data for semantic typologies.

2015· article· en· W2405167433 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCategorization, perception, and language
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsourcingTypologyComputer scienceReplicateNatural language processingQuality (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceSemantic data modelCognitionData qualityData scienceInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebPsychologyStatisticsMathematicsMetric (unit)Geography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In semantic typology, it is desirable to have quick and easy\naccess to crosslinguistic elicitations describing stimuli from a\nsemantic domain. We explore the use of crowdsourcing for\nobtaining such data, and compare it with fieldwork data obtained\nthrough in-person elicitations. Despite potential concerns\nabout the quality of crowdsourced data, we find no difference\nin the amount of between-language variation and can\nreplicate a cognitive modeling experiment using the crowdsourced\ndata in place of the fieldwork data. Both results suggest\nthat crowdsourcing elicitations is a viable method for\ngathering data for semantic typology and cognitive modeling

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.239 · 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