Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32520948›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Enhancing big data in the social sciences with crowdsourcing: Data augmentation practices, techniques, and opportunities.

Nathaniel D Porter, Ashton M Verdery, S Michael Gaddis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nathaniel D PorterVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0479-6777
Ashton M VerderyThe Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
S Michael GaddisUniversity of California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3467-878X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proponents of big data claim it will fuel a social research revolution, but skeptics challenge its reliability and decontextualization. The largest subset of big data is not designed for social research. Data augmentation-systematic assessment of measurement against known quantities and expansion of extant data with new information-is an important tool to maximize such data's validity and research value. Using trained research assistants or specialized algorithms are common approaches to augmentation but may not scale to big data or appease skeptics. We consider a third alternative: data augmentation with online crowdsourcing. Three empirical cases illustrate strengths and limitations of crowdsourcing, using Amazon Mechanical Turk to verify automated coding, link online databases, and gather data on online resources. Using these, we develop best practice guidelines and a reporting template to enhance reproducibility. Carefully designed, correctly applied, and rigorously documented crowdsourcing help address concerns about big data's usefulness for social research.

Indexed as

Big DataCrowdsourcingData CollectionHumansReproducibility of ResultsSocial Sciences

Identifiers

PMID32520948
PMCPMC7286483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.