MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759341995 · doi:10.17705/1cais.04114

Using Mechanical Turk Data in IS Research: Risks, Rewards, and Recommendations

2017· article· en· W2759341995 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

VenueCommunications of the Association for Information Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Data scienceComputer scienceCognitionData setPsychologyWork (physics)Data collectionApplied psychologyArtificial intelligenceSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing use of crowdsourced data in behavioral research fields, it is important to examine their appropriateness and desirability for IS research. Extending recent work in the IS literature, this tutorial discusses the risks and rewards of using data gathered on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. We examine the characteristics of MTurk workers and the resulting method biases that may be exacerbated in MTurk data. Based on this analysis, we present a 2x2 matrix to illustrate the categories of IS research questions that are and are not amenable to MTurk data. We suggest that MTurk data is more appropriate for generalizing studies that examine diverse cognition than for contextualizing studies or those involving shared cognition. Finally, we offer a set of practical recommendations for researchers who wish to collect data on MTurk.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.430
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.030 · 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