Using Mechanical Turk Data in IS Research: Risks, Rewards, and Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.257 | 0.611 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".