Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Olivia Huang

dblp:360/1115 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › data annotation
annotation agreement
0.712023
Incorporating Worker Perspectives into MTurk Annotation Practices for NLP · EMNLP 2023
Empirical software engineering › data annotation
crowdsourced annotation
0.712023
Incorporating Worker Perspectives into MTurk Annotation Practices for NLP · EMNLP 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

survey · 0.7critical literature review · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Incorporating Worker Perspectives into MTurk Annotation Practices for NLP
abstract
Current practices regarding data collection for natural language processing on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) often rely on a combination of studies on data quality and heuristics shared among NLP researchers.However, without considering the perspectives of MTurk workers, these approaches are susceptible to issues regarding workers' rights and poor response quality.We conducted a critical literature review and a survey of MTurk workers aimed at addressing open questions regarding best practices for fair payment, worker privacy, data quality, and considering worker incentives.We found that worker preferences are often at odds with received wisdom among NLP researchers.Surveyed workers preferred reliable, reasonable payments over uncertain, very high payments; reported frequently lying on demographic questions; and expressed frustration at having work rejected with no explanation.We also found that workers view some quality control methods, such as requiring minimum response times or Master's qualifications, as biased and largely ineffective.Based on the survey results, we provide recommendations on how future NLP studies may better account for MTurk workers' experiences in order to respect workers' rights and improve data quality.
Olivia Huang, Eve Fleisig, Daniel Klein 0001
EMNLP1