MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951194580 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.05234

In-Route Task Selection in Crowdsourcing

2018· preprint· en· W2951194580 on OpenAlexafffund
Camila F. Costa, Mário A. Nascimento

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCiência sem FronteirasConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsTask (project management)CrowdsourcingHeuristicComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Selection (genetic algorithm)SkylinePath (computing)Order (exchange)Artificial intelligenceData miningWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One important problem in crowdsourcing is that of assigning tasks to workers. We consider a scenario where a worker is traveling on a preferred/typical path (e.g., from school to home) and there is a set of tasks available to be performed. Furthermore, we assume that: each task yields a positive reward, the worker has the skills necessary to perform all available tasks and he/she is willing to possibly deviate from his/her preferred path as long as he/she travels at most a total given distance/time. We call this problem the In-Route Task Selection (IRTS) problem and investigate it using the skyline paradigm in order to obtain the exact set of non-dominated solutions, i.e., good and diverse solutions yielding different combinations of smaller or larger rewards while traveling more or less. This is a practically relevant problem as it empowers the worker as he/she can decide, in real time, which tasks suit his/her needs and/or availability better. After showing that the IRTS problem is NP-hard, we propose an exact (but expensive) solution and a few others practical heuristic solutions. While the exact solution is suitable only for reasonably small IRTS instances, the heuristic solutions can produce solutions with good values of precision and recall for problems of realistic sizes within practical, in fact most often sub-second, query processing time.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.142 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207