MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792499629

Crowdsourcing Versus the Laboratory: Towards Human-Centered Experiments Using the Crowd.

2015· article· en· W2792499629 on OpenAlexaff
Ujwal Gadiraju, Sebastian Möller, Martin Nöllenburg, Dietmar Saupe, Sebastian Egger-Lampl, Daniel Archambault, Brian Fisher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsourcingVariety (cybernetics)Data scienceFlourishingScale (ratio)Computer scienceKey (lock)World Wide WebArtificial intelligenceComputer securityPsychologyGeographySocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crowdsourcing solutions are increasingly being adopted across a variety of domains these days. An important consequence of the flourishing crowdsourcing markets is that experiments which were traditionally carried out in laboratories on a much smaller scale can now tap into the immense potential of online labor. Researchers in different fields have shown considerable interest in attempting to carry out priorly constrained lab experiments in the crowd. In this chapter, we reflect on the key factors to consider while transitioning from controlled laboratory experiments to large scale experiments in the crowd.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207