MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199670394 · doi:10.5210/spir.v2021i0.12213

“YES, I WILL WORK ON MY FREE TIME” – DIGITAL WORK ON AMAZON MECHANICAL TURK AS THE HISTORICAL CONTINUATION OF THE EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN'S LABOR

2021· article· en· W3199670394 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno Moreschi, Amanda Chevtchouk Jurno, Monique Lemos

Bibliographic record

VenueAoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Economy and Work Transformation
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmazon rainforestAutonomyWork (physics)CapitalismSociologyPower (physics)Gender studiesEngineeringPolitical scienceLawMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this proposal, we pursue an approximation to Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) women workers to understand their specificities and their layers of dependence in this environment so pertinent to the “late capitalism” (Crary 2016). AMT is an online platform where workers perform low-paid services that cannot be efficiently automated. Since 2019, in the Group [Anonymized excerpt], at the University [Anonymized excerpt], we have carried out projects where we approach these workers in an attempt to understand their routines, desires and the future of work itself. In our experiences, it has become evident that women turkers tend to be even more precarious due to gender issues passed to AMT. Also we concluded that AMT help keeping the women labor power available for unpaid domestic services and, at the same time, make it profitable for several companies. To understand more about them, we conducted a survey with 53 women turkers and systematized their responses. We approached some of them to understand the relationship between Artificial Intelligence and gender issues, and also ways of better working conditions and more autonomy for these women workers.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAoIR Selected Papers of Internet ResearchSame topicDigital Economy and Work TransformationFrench-language works237,207