ArticleScientific reports2024
Design and evaluation of crowdsourcing platforms based on users' confidence judgments.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed 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?
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.