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

Bryant Lee

dblp:78/4966 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2009
—ORCID · none

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 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.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing
collective intelligence
0.112009
Coordination in collective intelligence: the role of team structure and task interdependence · CHI 2009
Collaborative and social computing
peer production
0.012009
Coordination in collective intelligence: the role of team structure and task interdependence · CHI 2009
Collaborative and social computing › peer production
wikipedia
0.012009
Coordination in collective intelligence: the role of team structure and task interdependence · CHI 2009

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

quantitative analysis · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2009 Coordination in collective intelligence: the role of team structure and task interdependence
abstract
The success of Wikipedia has demonstrated the power of peer production in knowledge building. However, unlike many other examples of collective intelligence, tasks in Wikipedia can be deeply interdependent and may incur high coordination costs among editors. Increasing the number of editors increases the resources available to the system, but it also raises the costs of coordination. This suggests that the dependencies of tasks in Wikipedia may determine whether they benefit from increasing the number of editors involved. Specifically, we hypothesize that adding editors may benefit low-coordination tasks but have negative consequences for tasks requiring a high degree of coordination. Furthermore, concentrating the work to reduce coordination dependencies should enable more efficient work by many editors. Analyses of both article ratings and article review comments provide support for both hypotheses. These results suggest ways to better harness the efforts of many editors in social collaborative systems involving high coordination tasks.
Aniket Kittur, Bryant Lee, Robert E. Kraut
CHI2