Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the state of the literature in respect to Crowdsourcing for policy making? This work attempts to answer this question by collecting, categorizing, and situating the extant research investigating Crowdsourcing for policy, within the broader Crowdsourcing literature. To do so, the work first extends the Crowdsourcing literature by introducing, defining, explaining, and using seven universal characteristics of all general Crowdsourcing techniques, to vividly draw-out the relative trade-offs of each mode of Crowdsourcing. From this beginning, the work systematically and explicitly weds the three types of Crowdsourcing to the stages of the Policy cycle as a method of situating the extant literature spanning both domains. Thereafter, we discuss the trends, highlighting the research gaps, and outline the overlaps in the research on Crowdsourcing for policy, stemming from our analysis.Prpić, J., Taeihagh, A., & Melton, J. (2014). A Framework for Policy Crowdsourcing. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford - IPP 2014 - Crowdsourcing for Politics and Policy.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".