Leveraging crowdsourcing for team elasticity: an empirical evaluation at TopCoder
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
There is an emergent trend in software development projects that mini-tasks can be crowdsourced to achieve rapid development and delivery. For software managers requesting crowdsourcing services, it is beneficial to be able to evaluate and assure the availability and performance of trustable workers on their tasks. However, existing rating systems are facing challenges such as providing limited information regarding worker's abilities as well as potential threats from workers' gaming or cheating the systems. To develop better understanding of worker performance in software crowdsourcing, this paper reports an empirical study at TopCoder, one of the primary software crowdsourcing platforms. We aim at investigating the following questions: How diverse are crowd workers in terms of skill and experience? How fast do crowd workers respond to a task call? How reliable are crowd workers in submitting tasks? And how much does CSD benefit schedule reduction? The main results of this study showed that on average, (i) 59% of workers respond to a task call in the first 24 hours, (ii) 24% of the workers who registered early will make submissions to tasks, and 76% of them exceeding the acceptance criteria, and (iii) an overall average of 1.82 schedule acceleration rate is observed through organizing mass parallel development in 4 software crowdsourcing projects. Such empirical evidences are beneficial to help exploring resourcing options and improve team elasticity in adaptive software development.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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