Drafty: Enlisting Users To Be Editors Who Maintain Structured Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structured datasets are difficult to keep up-to-date since the underlying facts evolve over time; curated data about business financials, organizational hierarchies, or drug interactions are constantly changing. Drafty is a platform that enlists visitors of an editable dataset to become ``user-editors'' to help solve this problem. It records and analyzes user-editors' within-page interactions to construct user interest profiles, creating a cyclical feedback mechanism that enables Drafty to target requests for specific corrections from user-editors. To validate the automatically generated user interest profiles, we surveyed participants who performed self-created tasks with Drafty and found their user interest score was 3.2 higher on data they were interested in versus data they had no interest in. Next, a 7-month live experiment compared the efficacy of user-editor corrections depending on whether they were asked to review data that matched their interests. Our findings suggest that user-editors are approximately 3 times more likely to provide accurate corrections for data matching their interest profiles, and about 2 times more likely to provide corrections in the first place.
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 | 0.034 | 0.230 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.009 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".