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

Olga Megorskaya

dblp:166/3377 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none

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

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 3 · 1 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 1

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.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
3 papers
Data mining · 56% Machine learning and data management · 28% Information retrieval · 16%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning and data management
data annotation
0.922020
Practice of Efficient Data Collection via Crowdsourcing: Aggregation, Incremental Relabelling, and Pricing · WSDM 2020
Crowdsourcing Practice for Efficient Data Labeling: Aggregation, Incremental Relabeling, and Pricing · SIGMOD Conference 2020
Data mining › crowdsourcing
label aggregation
0.922020
Practice of Efficient Data Collection via Crowdsourcing: Aggregation, Incremental Relabelling, and Pricing · WSDM 2020
Crowdsourcing Practice for Efficient Data Labeling: Aggregation, Incremental Relabeling, and Pricing · SIGMOD Conference 2020
Data mining › crowdsourcing
crowdsourced annotation
0.412020
Crowdsourcing Practice for Efficient Data Labeling: Aggregation, Incremental Relabeling, and Pricing · SIGMOD Conference 2020
Data mining › crowdsourcing
crowdsourced data
0.412020
Practice of Efficient Data Collection via Crowdsourcing: Aggregation, Incremental Relabelling, and Pricing · WSDM 2020
Information retrieval
evaluation
0.212015
On the Relation Between Assessor's Agreement and Accuracy in Gamified Relevance Assessment · SIGIR 2015
Information retrieval › evaluation
relevance judgment
0.212015
On the Relation Between Assessor's Agreement and Accuracy in Gamified Relevance Assessment · SIGIR 2015

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

crowdsourcing · 0.4inter-assessor agreement analysis · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Crowdsourcing Practice for Efficient Data Labeling: Aggregation, Incremental Relabeling, and Pricing
abstract
In this tutorial, we present a portion of unique industry experience in efficient data labeling via crowdsourcing shared by both leading researchers and engineers from Yandex. We will make an introduction to data labeling via public crowdsourcing marketplaces and will present the key components of efficient label collection. This will be followed by a practice session, where participants will choose one of the real label collection tasks, experiment with selecting settings for the labeling process, and launch their label collection project on one of the largest crowdsourcing marketplaces. The projects will be run on real crowds within the tutorial session. While the crowd performers are annotating the project set up by the attendees, we will present the major theoretical results in efficient aggregation, incremental relabeling, and dynamic pricing. We will also discuss their strengths and weaknesses as well as applicability to real-world tasks, summarizing our five year-long research and industrial expertise in crowdsourcing. Finally, participants will receive a feedback about their projects and practical advice on how to make them more efficient. We invite beginners, advanced specialists, and researchers to learn how to collect high quality labeled data and do it efficiently.
Alexey Drutsa, Valentina Fedorova, Dmitry Ustalov, Olga Megorskaya, Evfrosiniya Zerminova, Daria Baidakova
SIGMOD Conference4
2020 Practice of Efficient Data Collection via Crowdsourcing: Aggregation, Incremental Relabelling, and Pricing
abstract
In this tutorial, we present a portion of unique industry experience in efficient data labelling via crowdsourcing shared by both leading researchers and engineers from Yandex. We will make an introduction to data labelling via public crowdsourcing marketplaces and will present key components of efficient label collection. This will be followed by a practice session, where participants will choose one of the real label collection tasks, experiment with selecting settings for the labelling process, and launch their label collection project on Yandex.Toloka, one of the largest crowdsourcing marketplaces. The projects will be run on real crowds within the tutorial session. Finally, participants will receive a feedback about their projects and practical advice to make them more efficient. We expect that our tutorial will address an audience with a wide range of background and interests. We do not require specific prerequisite knowledge or skills. We invite beginners, advanced specialists, and researchers to learn how to efficiently collect labelled data.
Alexey Drutsa, Valentina Fedorova, Dmitry Ustalov, Olga Megorskaya, Evfrosiniya Zerminova, Daria Baidakova
WSDM4
2015 On the Relation Between Assessor's Agreement and Accuracy in Gamified Relevance Assessment
abstract
Expert judgments (labels) are widely used in Information Retrieval for the purposes of search quality evaluation and machine learning. Setting up the process of collecting such judgments is a challenge of its own, and the maintenance of judgments quality is an extremely important part of the process. One of the possible ways of controlling the quality is monitoring inter-assessor agreement level. But does the agreement level really reflect the quality of assessor's judgments? Indeed, if a group of assessors comes to a consensus, to what extent should we trust their collective opinion? In this paper, we investigate, whether the agreement level can be used as a metric for estimating the quality of assessor's judgments, and provide recommendations for the design of judgments collection workflow. Namely, we estimate the correlation between assessors' accuracy and agreement in the scope of several workflow designs and investigate which specific workflow features influence the accuracy of judgments the most.
Olga Megorskaya, Vladimir Kukushkin, Pavel Serdyukov
SIGIR1