Teachable Conversational Agents for Crowdwork: Effects on Performance and Trust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional crowdsourcing has mostly been viewed as requester-worker interaction where requesters publish tasks to solicit input from human crowdworkers. While most of this research area is catered towards the interest of requesters, we view this workflow as a teacher-learner interaction scenario where one or more human-teachers solve Human Intelligence Tasks to train machine learners. In this work, we explore how teachable machine learners can impact their human-teachers, and whether they form a trustable relation that can be relied upon for task delegation in the context of crowdsourcing. Specifically, we focus our work on teachable agents that learn to classify news articles while also guiding the teaching process through conversational interventions. In a two-part study, where several crowd workers individually teach the agent, we investigate whether this learning by teaching approach benefits human-machine collaboration, and whether it leads to trustworthy AI agents that crowd workers would delegate tasks to. Results demonstrate the benefits of the learning by teaching approach, in terms of perceived usefulness for crowdworkers, and the dynamics of trust built through the teacher-learner interaction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".