The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Collaboratively crowdsourcing workflows with turkomatic
Abstract
Preparing complex jobs for crowdsourcing marketplaces requires careful attention to workflow design, the process of decomposing jobs into multiple tasks, which are solved by multiple workers. Can the crowd help design such workflows? This paper presents Turkomatic, a tool that recruits crowd workers to aid requesters in planning and solving complex jobs. While workers decompose and solve tasks, requesters can view the status of worker-designed workflows in real time; intervene to change tasks and solutions; and request new solutions to subtasks from the crowd. These features lower the threshold for crowd employers to request complex work. During two evaluations, we found that allowing the crowd to plan without requester supervision is partially successful, but that requester intervention during workflow planning and execution improves quality substantially. We argue that Turkomatic's collaborative approach can be more successful than the conventional workflow design process and discuss implications for the design of collaborative crowd planning systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside
Bernstein, M. S., Little, G., Miller, R. C., Hartmann, B., Ackerman, M. S., Karger, D. R., Crowell, D., & Panovich, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology · doi:10.1145/1866029.1866078 · Cited by 686
Self-citationVizWiz: nearly real-time answers to visual questions
Bigham, J. P., Jayant, C., Ji, H., Little, G., Miller, A., Miller, R. C., Miller, R., Tatarowicz, A., White, B., White, S., et al. (2010) · Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology · doi:10.1145/1866029.1866080 · Cited by 601
Cited by
The role of advanced sensing in smart cities
Hancke, G., Silva, B., & Hancke, Jr. (2012) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s130100393 · Cited by 626
Sharing Knowledge and Expertise: The CSCW View of Knowledge Management
Ackerman, M. S., Dachtera, J., Pipek, V., & Wulf, V. (2013) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-013-9192-8 · Cited by 229
Learning from crowdsourced labeled data: a survey
Zhang, J., Wu, X., & Sheng, V. S. (2016) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-016-9491-9 · Cited by 203
To Live in Their Utopia: Why Algorithmic Systems Create Absurd Outcomes
Alkhatib, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445740 · Cited by 81
Collaborative problem solving: a study of MathOverflow
Tausczik, Y. R., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2014) · Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing · doi:10.1145/2531602.2531690 · Cited by 78
Enhancing reliability using peer consistency evaluation in human computation
Huang, S.-W., & Fu, W.-T. (2013) · Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1145/2441776.2441847 · Cited by 50
Cicero: Multi-Turn, Contextual Argumentation for Accurate Crowdsourcing
Chen, Q., Bragg, J., Chilton, L. B., & Weld, D. S. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300761 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Kulkarni, A., Can, M., & Hartmann, B.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2012-02-11
- Pages
- 1003-1012
- OpenAlex
- W2133485007
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.79
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
