Structure of Crowdsourcing Community Networks
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
Due to the interest of organizations and academics, crowdsourcing is emerging as an area of targeted social networking. The recent popularity and notable rise of crowdsourcing provides us with the opportunity to study these emerging communities to standardize and facilitate the crowdsourcing process for future development of such platforms. In this paper, we conduct a large and comprehensive study of the structure of a number of crowdsourcing communities (CCs). We study various properties of association (ASSO) and interaction (INTR) networks in an attempt to compare them with existing networks, such as online social networks (OSNs) and the World Wide Web (WWW) network. We obtained data for five successful CCs with nearly two million vertices and nearly six million edges, as well as data for four popular social network sites, Flickr, YouTube, Orkut, and LiveJournal, with more than 11 million vertices and over 328 million edges. We also obtained WWW data containing over 18 million vertices and over 64 million edges. We believe this is the first structural comparative study of CC networks with social and WWW networks at this scale. Our study reveals that CC networks-both ASSO and INTR- are smaller and less symmetrical than OSNs. Similar to OSNs and WWW, degree distributions of CC networks follow powerlaw distribution. CCs and WWW do not suffer influence dilution as is the case in OSNs. Different than OSNs, members of CC networks tend to connect to others with varying degrees, as is the case with WWW.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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