Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35692938›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2022

Crowdsourcing Team Formation With Worker-Centered Modeling.

Federica Lucia Vinella, Jiayuan Hu, Ioanna Lykourentzou, Judith Masthoff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Federica Lucia VinellaHuman Centred-Computing, Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Jiayuan HuHuman Centred-Computing, Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Ioanna LykourentzouHuman Centred-Computing, Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Judith MasthoffHuman Centred-Computing, Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern crowdsourcing offers the potential to produce solutions for increasingly complex tasks requiring teamwork and collective labor. However, the vast scale of the crowd makes forming project teams an intractable problem to coordinate manually. To date, most crowdsourcing collaborative platforms rely on algorithms to automate team formation based on worker profiling data and task objectives. As a top-down strategy, algorithmic crowd team formation tends to alienate workers causing poor collaboration, interpersonal clashes, and dissatisfaction. In this paper, we investigate different ways that crowd teams can be formed through three team formation models namely bottom-up, top-down, and hybrid. By simulating an open collaboration scenario such as a hackathon, we observe that the bottom-up model forms the most competitive teams with the highest teamwork quality. Furthermore, we note that bottom-up approaches are particularly suitable for populations with high-risk appetites (most workers being lenient toward exploring new team configurations) and high degrees of homophily (most workers preferring to work with similar teammates). Our study highlights the importance of integrating worker agency in algorithm-mediated team formation systems, especially in collaborative/competitive settings, and bears practical implications for large-scale crowdsourcing platforms.

Indexed as

agent based modelingcrowdsourcingself-organizationsocial computingteam formation

Identifiers

PMID35692938
PMCPMC9184727

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.