A Blockchain-Based Spatial Crowdsourcing System for Spatial Information Collection Using a Reward Distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the increasing relevance of spatial information in different aspects of location-based services, various methods are used to collect this information. The use of crowdsourcing due to plurality and distribution is a remarkable strategy for collecting information, especially spatial information. Crowdsourcing can have a substantial effect on increasing the accuracy of data. However, many centralized crowdsourcing systems lack security and transparency due to a trusted party's existence. With the emergence of blockchain technology, there has been an increase in security, transparency, and traceability in spatial crowdsourcing systems. In this paper, we propose a blockchain-based spatial crowdsourcing system in which workers confirm or reject the accuracy of tasks. Tasks are reports submitted by requesters to the system; a report comprises type and location. To our best knowledge, the proposed system is the first system that all participants receive rewards. This system considers spatial and non-spatial reward factors to encourage users' participation in collecting accurate spatial information. Privacy preservation and security of spatial information are considered in the system. We also evaluated the system efficiency. According to the experiment results, using the proposed system, information accuracy increased by 40%, and the minimum time for reviewing reports by facilities reduced by 30%. Moreover, we compared the proposed system with the current centralized and distributed crowdsourcing systems. This comparison shows that, although our proposed system omits the user's history to preserve privacy, it considers a consensus-based approach to guarantee submitted reports' accuracy. The proposed system also has a reward mechanism to encourage more participation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".