MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323294919 · doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000719

Using a Delphi Method Approach to Select Theoretical Underpinnings of Crowdsourcing and Rank Their Application to a Crowdsourcing App

2023· article· en· W4323294919 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

VenueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsourcingComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Field (mathematics)Data scienceLeverage (statistics)StakeholderWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Since the catapult of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, most simulation laboratories are now completed virtually, leaving a gap in skills training and potential for technical skills decay. Acquiring standard, commercially available simulators is prohibitively expensive, but three-dimensional (3D) printing may provide an alternative. This project aimed to develop the theoretical foundations of a crowdsourcing Web-based application (Web app) to fill the gap in health professions simulation training equipment via community-based 3D printing. We aimed to discover how to effectively leverage crowdsourcing with local 3D printers and use these resources to produce simulators via this Web app accessed through computers or smart devices. METHODS: First, a scoping literature review was conducted to discover the theoretical underpinnings of crowdsourcing. Second, these review results were ranked by consumer (health field) and producer (3D printing field) groups via modified Delphi method surveys to determine suitable community engagement strategies for the Web app. Third, the results informed different app iteration ideas and were then generalized beyond the app to address scenarios entailing environmental changes and demands. RESULTS: A scoping review revealed 8 crowdsourcing-related theories. Three were deemed most suitable for our context by both participant groups: Motivation Crowding Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Transaction Cost Theory. Each theory proposed a different crowdsourcing solution that can streamline additive manufacturing within simulation while applicable to multiple contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Results will be aggregated to develop this flexible Web app that adapts to stakeholder needs and ultimately solves this gap by delivering home-based simulation via community mobilization.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.331 · 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