A Geography of Participation in IT-Mediated Crowds
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work we seek to understand how differences in location effect participation outcomes in IT-mediated crowds. To do so, we operationalize Crowd Capital Theory with data from a popular international creative crowd sourcing site, to determine whether regional differences exist in crowd sourcing participation outcomes. We present the results of our investigation from data encompassing 1,858,202 observations from 28,214 crowd members on 94 different projects in 2012. Using probit regressions to isolate geographic effects by continental region, we find significant variation across regions in crowd sourcing participation. In doing so, we contribute to the literature by illustrating that geography matters in respect to crowd participation. Further, our work illustrates an initial validation of Crowd Capital Theory as a useful theoretical model to guide empirical inquiry in the fast-growing domain of IT-mediated crowds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it