ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Improving crowdsourcing for AI through cognitive-inspired data engineering.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Crowdsourcing offers a fast and cost-efficient approach to obtaining human-labeled datasets. However, crowdsourced datasets and the models trained on them can inherit the cognitive constraints and biases of their annotators. In a process we refer to as cognitive-inspired data engineering, we investigate whether ideas from cognitive science can be applied to mitigate the presence of cognitive constraints and cognitive biases in crowdsourced datasets and, as a result, improve the performance of models trained on these datasets. We evaluate our approach by crowdsourcing labels for medical image diagnostic tasks using two different crowdsourcing platforms across two experiments. In Experiment 1, we collect subjective probability judgments from novice annotators through Amazon Mechanical Turk and, in Experiment 2, we collect subjective probability judgments and binary classifications from skilled annotators through DiagnosUs, a crowdsourcing platform specializing in medical and scientific data annotation. In both experiments, we find that recalibrating subjective probability judgments reduces bias, yielding more accurate crowdsourced datasets and more accurate models trained on them. Our results suggest that cognitive-inspired data engineering offers a promising avenue to improve the quality of crowdsourced datasets, with consistent downstream benefits for machine learning models.
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.