skip to main content
10.1145/3406865.3418318acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

DREC: towards a Datasheet for Reporting Experiments in Crowdsourcing

Published:17 October 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Factors such as instructions, payment schemes, platform demographics, along with strategies for mapping studies into crowdsourcing environments, play an important role in the reproducibility of results. However, inferring these details from scientific articles is often a challenging endeavor, calling for the development of proper reporting guidelines. This paper makes the first steps towards this goal, by describing an initial taxonomy of relevant attributes for crowdsourcing experiments, and providing a glimpse into the state of reporting by analyzing a sample of CSCW papers.

References

  1. Kitchenham Barbara and Stuart Charters. 2007. Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. 2 (01 2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Natã Miccael Barbosa and Monchu Chen. 2019. Rehumanized Crowdsourcing: A Labeling Framework Addressing Bias and Ethics in Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2019, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, May 04-09, 2019. 543. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300773Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Michael Buhrmester, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D. Gosling. 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, 1 (2011), 3--5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980 PMID: 26162106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Michael Buhrmester, Sanaz Talaifar, and Samuel Gosling. 2018. An Evaluation of Amazon's Mechanical Turk, Its Rapid Rise, and Its Effective Use. Perspectives on Psychological Science 13 (03 2018), 149--154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706516Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jesse Chandler, Pam Mueller, and Gabriele Paolacci. 2013. Nonnaïveté Among Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers: Consequences and Solutions for Behavioral Researchers. Behavior research methods 46 (07 2013). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0365--7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Florian Daniel, Pavel Kucherbaev, Cinzia Cappiello, Boualem Benatallah, and Mohammad Allahbakhsh. 2018. Quality Control in Crowdsourcing: A Survey of Quality Attributes, Assessment Techniques, and Assurance Actions. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 1 (2018), 7:1--7:40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3148148Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Ujwal Gadiraju, Alessandro Checco, Neha Gupta, and Gianluca Demartini. 2017. Modus operandi of crowd workers: The invisible role of microtask work environments. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 3 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ujwal Gadiraju, Sebastian Möller, Martin Nöllenburg, Dietmar Saupe, Sebastian Egger-Lampl, Daniel W. Archambault, and Brian Fisher. 2015. Crowdsourcing Versus the Laboratory: Towards Human-Centered Experiments Using the Crowd. In Evaluation in the Crowd. Crowdsourcing and Human-Centered Experiments - Dagstuhl Seminar 15481, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, November 22--27, 2015, Revised Contributions. 6--26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--319--66435--4_2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna M. Wallach, Hal Daumé III, and Kate Crawford. 2018. Datasheets for Datasets. CoRR abs/1803.09010 (2018). arXiv:1803.09010 http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.09010Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Joseph Goodman and G. Paolacci. 2017. Crowdsourcing consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 44 (06 2017), 196--210. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx047Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Chien-Ju Ho, Aleksandrs Slivkins, Siddharth Suri, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2015. Incentivizing High Quality Crowdwork. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2015, Florence, Italy, May 18--22, 2015. 419--429. https://doi.org/10.1145/2736277.2741102Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Aniket Kittur, Ed H. Chi, and Bongwon Suh. 2008. Crowdsourcing user studies with Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2008, 2008, Florence, Italy, April 5--10, 2008. 453--456. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357127Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Aniket Kittur, Jeffrey V. Nickerson, Michael S. Bernstein, Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron D. Shaw, John Zimmerman, Matt Lease, and John J. Horton. 2013. The future of crowd work. In Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 2013, San Antonio, TX, USA, February 23--27, 2013. 1301--1318. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441923Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Ranjay A Krishna, Kenji Hata, Stephanie Chen, Joshua Kravitz, David A Shamma, Li Fei-Fei, and Michael S Bernstein. 2016. Embracing error to enable rapid crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 3167--3179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Eddy Maddalena, Marco Basaldella, Dario De Nart, Dante Degl'Innocenti, Stefano Mizzaro, and Gianluca Demartini. 2016. Crowdsourcing relevance assessments: The unexpected benefits of limiting the time to judge. In Fourth AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Winter Mason and Siddharth Suri. 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 44, 1 (01 Mar 2012), 1--23. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124--6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model Cards for Model Reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* 2019, Atlanta, GA, USA, January 29--31, 2019. 220--229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Nathaniel D. Porter, Ashton M. Verdery, and S. Michael Gaddis. 2020. Enhancing big data in the social sciences with crowdsourcing: Data augmentation practices, techniques, and opportunities. PLOS ONE 15, 6 (06 2020), 1--21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233154Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Rehab Kamal Qarout, Alessandro Checco, Gianluca Demartini, and Kalina Bontcheva. 2019. Platform-Related Factors in Repeatability and Reproducibility of Crowdsourcing Tasks. In HCOMP 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jorge Ramírez, Marcos Baez, Fabio Casati, and Boualem Benatallah. 2019. Crowdsourced dataset to study the generation and impact of text highlighting in classification tasks. BMC Research Notes 12, 1 (2019), 820. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019--4858-zGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Jorge Ramírez, Marcos Baez, Fabio Casati, and Boualem Benatallah. 2019. Understanding the Impact of Text Highlighting in Crowdsourcing Tasks. In Proceedings of the Seventh AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, HCOMP 2019, Vol. 7. AAAI, 144--152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Jakob Rogstadius, Vassilis Kostakos, Aniket Kittur, Boris Smus, Jim Laredo, and Maja Vukovic. 2011. An Assessment of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation on Task Performance in Crowdsourcing Markets. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, July 17--21, 2011. http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/view/2778Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Marta Sabou, Kalina Bontcheva, Leon Derczynski, and Arno Scharl. 2014. Corpus Annotation through Crowdsourcing: Towards Best Practice Guidelines. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2014, Reykjavik, Iceland, May 26--31, 2014. 859--866. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/summaries/497.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Harini Alagarai Sampath, Rajeev Rajeshuni, and Bipin Indurkhya. 2014. Cognitively inspired task design to improve user performance on crowdsourcing platforms. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI'14, Toronto, ON, Canada - April 26 - May 01, 2014. 3665--3674. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557155Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Benjamin Saunders, Julius Sim, Tom Kingstone, Shula Baker, Jackie Waterfield, Bernadette Bartlam, Heather Burroughs, and Clare Jinks. 2018. Saturation in Qualitative Research: Exploring its Conceptualization and Operationalization. Quality & quantity 52, 4 (2018), 1893--1907.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Larissa Shamseer, David Moher, Mike Clarke, Davina Ghersi, Alessandro Liberati, Mark Petticrew, Paul Shekelle, and Lesley A Stewart. 2015. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 349 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647 arXiv: https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7647.full.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Aaron D. Shaw, John J. Horton, and Daniel L. Chen. 2011. Designing incentives for inexpert human raters. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW 2011, Hangzhou, China, March 19--23, 2011. 275--284. https://doi.org/10.1145/1958824.1958865Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Meng-Han Wu and Alexander J. Quinn. 2017. Confusing the Crowd: Task Instruction Quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In HCOMP 2017. https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/HCOMP/HCOMP17/paper/view/15943Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. DREC: towards a Datasheet for Reporting Experiments in Crowdsourcing

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CSCW '20 Companion: Companion Publication of the 2020 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
      October 2020
      559 pages
      ISBN:9781450380591
      DOI:10.1145/3406865

      Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 17 October 2020

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • poster

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader