MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194836746 · doi:10.4018/jdm.2018010101

Beyond Micro-Tasks

2018· article· en· W3194836746 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Database Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsourcingCrowdsData scienceExploitComputer scienceScope (computer science)Extant taxonDomain (mathematical analysis)Observational studyRedundancy (engineering)Scale (ratio)Knowledge managementWorld Wide WebComputer securityGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of crowdsourcing as an important mode of information production has attracted increasing research attention. In this article, the authors review crowdsourcing research in the data management field. Most research in this domain can be termed tasked-based, focusing on micro-tasks that exploit scale and redundancy in crowds. The authors' review points to another important type of crowdsourcing – which they term observational – that can expand the scope of extant crowdsourcing data management research. Observational crowdsourcing consists of projects that harness human sensory ability to support long-term data acquisition. The authors consider the challenges in this domain, review approaches to data management for crowdsourcing, and suggest directions for future research that bridges the gaps between the two research streams.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it