Design and evaluation of crowdsourcing platforms based on users’ confidence judgments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crowdsourcing deals with solving problems by assigning them to a large number of non-experts called crowd using their spare time. In these systems, the final answer to the question is determined by summing up the votes obtained from the community. The popularity of these systems has increased by facilitating access for community members through mobile phones and the Internet. One of the issues raised in crowdsourcing is how to choose people and how to collect answers. Usually, users are separated based on their performance in a pre-test. Designing the pre-test for performance calculation is challenging; The pre-test questions should be selected to assess characteristics in individuals that are relevant to the main questions. One of the ways to increase the accuracy of crowdsourcing systems is by considering individuals' cognitive characteristics and decision-making models to form a crowd and improve the estimation of their answer accuracy to questions. People can estimate the correctness of their responses while making a decision. The accuracy of this estimate is determined by a quantity called metacognition ability. Metacoginition is referred to the case where the confidence level is considered along with the answer to increase the accuracy of the solution. In this paper, by both mathematical and experimental analysis, we would answer the following question: Is it possible to improve the performance of a crowdsourcing system by understanding individuals' metacognition and recording and utilizing users' confidence in their answers?
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 | 0.015 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".