Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications
Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications
复制标题
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.1408907112
复制
发表时间：
2015-01-20
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
Franzoni, Chiara
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sauermann, Henry;Franzoni, Chiara
在更广泛的公众（人群）参与下进行的科学研究吸引了科学家和决策者越来越多的关注。一个关键的前提是，项目组织者可以利用未充分利用的人力资源，以相对较低的成本推进研究。尽管有越来越多的例子，但缺乏关于志愿者愿意为群众科学项目做出贡献的系统研究。通过分析七个不同项目的数据，我们将志愿者的无偿贡献与传统或在线劳动力市场的反事实成本进行比较，量化了志愿者可以带来的财务价值。捐款总额很大，尽管有些项目在吸引努力方面比其他项目成功得多。此外，各项目收到的捐款在不同时期非常不均衡-活动减少的趋势被通常由外联工作或媒体关注引起的高峰打断。分析用户级数据，我们发现大多数贡献者只参与一次，而且几乎没有付出什么努力，留下一小部分用户负责大部分工作。虽然顶级贡献者的地位主要是通过更高水平的努力来获得的，但顶级贡献者也往往工作得更快。这种速度优势在多个会话中发展，表明它反映了学习而不是技能的内在差异。我们的研究结果为最近关于人群科学潜在益处的讨论提供了信息，表明让人群参与可能对某些类型的项目比其他项目更有效，为项目经理提供指导，并为未来的研究提出了重要问题。
Scientific research performed with the involvement of the broader public (the crowd) attracts increasing attention from scientists and policy makers. A key premise is that project organizers may be able to draw on underused human resources to advance research at relatively low cost. Despite a growing number of examples, systematic research on the effort contributions volunteers are willing to make to crowd science projects is lacking. Analyzing data on seven different projects, we quantify the financial value volunteers can bring by comparing their unpaid contributions with counterfactual costs in traditional or online labor markets. The volume of total contributions is substantial, although some projects are much more successful in attracting effort than others. Moreover, contributions received by projects are very uneven across time-a tendency toward declining activity is interrupted by spikes typically resulting from outreach efforts or media attention. Analyzing user-level data, we find that most contributors participate only once and with little effort, leaving a relatively small share of users who return responsible for most of the work. Although top contributor status is earned primarily through higher levels of effort, top contributors also tend to work faster. This speed advantage develops over multiple sessions, suggesting that it reflects learning rather than inherent differences in skills. Our findings inform recent discussions about potential benefits from crowd science, suggest that involving the crowd may be more effective for some kinds of projects than others, provide guidance for project managers, and raise important questions for future research.