Resolvable vs. Irresolvable Disagreement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crowdsourced classification of data typically assumes that objects can be unambiguously classified into categories. In practice, many classification tasks are ambiguous due to various forms of disagreement. Prior work shows that exchanging verbal justifications can significantly improve answer accuracy over aggregation techniques. In this work, we study how worker deliberation affects resolvability and accuracy using case studies with both an objective and a subjective task. Results show that case resolvability depends on various factors, including the level and reasons for the initial disagreement, as well as the amount and quality of deliberation activities. Our work reinforces the finding that deliberation can increase answer accuracy and the importance of verbal discussion in this process. We contribute a new public data set on worker deliberation for text classification tasks, and discuss considerations for the design of deliberation workflows for classification.
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 | 0.091 | 0.457 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".