Crowd Science: Measurements, Models, and Methods
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
The increasing practice of engaging crowds, where organizations use IT to connect with dispersed individuals for explicit resource creation purposes, has precipitated the need to measure the precise processes and benefits of these activities over myriad different implementations. In this work, we seek to address these salient and non-trivial considerations by laying a foundation of theory, measures, and research methods that allow us to test crowd engagement efficacy across organizations, industries, technologies, and geographies. To do so, we anchor ourselves in the Theory of Crowd Capital, a generalizable framework for studying IT-mediated crowd engagement phenomena, and put forth an empirical apparatus of testable measures and generalizable methods to begin to unify the field of crowd science.Prpić, J., & Shukla, P. (2016). Crowd Science: Measurements, Models, and Methods. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences #49. January 2016, Kauai, Hawaii, USA. IEEE Computer Society Press.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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