MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963114423

Reprowd: Crowdsourced Data Processing Made Reproducible.

2016· article· en· W2963114423 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueConference on Innovative Data Systems Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsourcingComputer scienceData scienceMultidisciplinary approachOpen researchWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crowdsourcing is a multidisciplinary research area including disciplines like artificial intelligence, human-computer interaction, database, and social science. To facilitate cooperation across disciplines, reproducibility is a crucial factor, but unfortunately, it has not gotten enough attention in the HCOMP community. In this paper, we present Reprowd, a system aiming to make it easy to reproduce crowdsourced data processing research. We have open sourced Reprowd at this http URL.

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.

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)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0200.018
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.878
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.283 · 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