MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744629383 · doi:10.18293/seke2017-102

Multi-Objective Crowd Worker Selection in Crowdsourced Testing

2017· article· en· W2744629383 on OpenAlex
Qiang Cui, Song Wang, Junjie Wang, Yuanzhe Hu, Qing Wang, Mingshu Li

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

VenueProceedings/Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaBaidu
KeywordsCrowdsourcingSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceCrowd sourcingData scienceMachine learningWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crowdsourced testing is an emerging trend in software testing, which relies on crowd workers to accomplish test tasks. Typically, a crowdsourced testing task aims to detect as many bugs as possible within a limited budget. For a specific test task, not all crowd workers are qualified to perform it, and different test tasks require crowd workers to have different experiences, domain knowledge, etc. Inappropriate workers may miss true bugs, introduce false bugs, or report duplicated bugs, which could not only decrease the quality of test outcomes, but also increase the cost of hiring workers. Thus, how to select the appropriate crowd workers for specific test tasks is a challenge in crowdsourced testing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.221 · 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