MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794325666 · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v5i1.13307

Deja Vu: Characterizing Worker Reliability Using Task Consistency

2017· article· en· W2794325666 on OpenAlexafffund
Alex C. Williams, Joslin Goh, Charlie Willis, Aaron M. Ellison, James H. Brusuelas, Charles C. Davis, Edith Law

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)Task (project management)Reliability (semiconductor)Metric (unit)Computer scienceContext (archaeology)Consistency modelMeasure (data warehouse)Reliability engineeringData miningArtificial intelligenceData consistencyEngineeringGeographyOperations managementDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consistency is a practical metric that evaluates an instrument's reliability based on its ability to yield the same output when repeatedly given a particular input. Despite its broad usage, little is understood about the feasibility of using consistency as a measure of worker reliability in crowdwork. In this paper, we explore the viability of measuring a worker's reliability by their ability to conform to themselves. We introduce and describe Deja Vu, a mechanism for dynamically generating task queues with consistency probes to measure the consistency of workers who repeat the same task twice. We present a study that utilizes Deja Vu to examine how generic characteristics of the duplicate task - such as placement, difficulty, and transformation - affect a worker’s task consistency in the context of two unique object detection tasks. Our findings provide insight into the design and use of consistency-based reliability metrics.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and CrowdsourcingSame topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207