What the Crowd Sources: A Protocol for a Contribution-Centred Systematic Literature Review of Data Crowdsourcing Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data crowdsourcing is the mobilization of large groups of contributors—often volunteers via the Internet—to collect and/or analyze data. Research on data crowdsourcing often prioritizes the data consumer or project sponsor. Significant gaps remain in understanding how to address design issues from the perspective of data crowdsourcing contributors. A systematic literature review is an ideal method for identifying gaps in how researchers conceptualize contributions in data crowdsourcing. This project presents a protocol for such a systematic literature review of data crowdsourcing. We will use the protocol to guide a subsequent systematic literature review and the construction of a data-information-knowledge-wisdom chart that identifies critical gaps and opportunities for research in data crowdsourcing systems.
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 | 0.334 | 0.411 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.025 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".