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

Anand Pramod Kulkarni

dblp:76/10919 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 1 first-author

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
2 papers
Collaborative and social computing · 75% Design research and methods · 25%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing
crowdsourcing
0.322012
Collaboratively crowdsourcing workflows with turkomatic · CSCW 2012
Shepherding the crowd yields better work · CSCW 2012
Collaborative and social computing › crowdsourcing
micro-task crowdsourcing
0.112012
Shepherding the crowd yields better work · CSCW 2012
Design research and methods
workflow design
0.112012
Collaboratively crowdsourcing workflows with turkomatic · CSCW 2012

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

self-assessment · 0.1iterative design · 0.1expert feedback · 0.1evaluation · 0.1between-subjects study · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2012 Shepherding the crowd yields better work
abstract
Micro-task platforms provide massively parallel, on-demand labor. However, it can be difficult to reliably achieve high-quality work because online workers may behave irresponsibly, misunderstand the task, or lack necessary skills. This paper investigates whether timely, task-specific feedback helps crowd workers learn, persevere, and produce better results. We investigate this question through Shepherd, a feedback system for crowdsourced work. In a between-subjects study with three conditions, crowd workers wrote consumer reviews for six products they own. Participants in the None condition received no immediate feedback, consistent with most current crowdsourcing practices. Participants in the Self-assessment condition judged their own work. Participants in the External assessment condition received expert feedback. Self-assessment alone yielded better overall work than the None condition and helped workers improve over time. External assessment also yielded these benefits. Participants who received external assessment also revised their work more. We conclude by discussing interaction and infrastructure approaches for integrating real-time assessment into online work.
Steven Dow, Anand Pramod Kulkarni, Scott R. Klemmer, Björn Hartmann
CSCW2
2012 Collaboratively crowdsourcing workflows with turkomatic
abstract
Preparing complex jobs for crowdsourcing marketplaces requires careful attention to workflow design, the process of decomposing jobs into multiple tasks, which are solved by multiple workers. Can the crowd help design such workflows? This paper presents Turkomatic, a tool that recruits crowd workers to aid requesters in planning and solving complex jobs. While workers decompose and solve tasks, requesters can view the status of worker-designed workflows in real time; intervene to change tasks and solutions; and request new solutions to subtasks from the crowd. These features lower the threshold for crowd employers to request complex work. During two evaluations, we found that allowing the crowd to plan without requester supervision is partially successful, but that requester intervention during workflow planning and execution improves quality substantially. We argue that Turkomatic's collaborative approach can be more successful than the conventional workflow design process and discuss implications for the design of collaborative crowd planning systems.
Anand Pramod Kulkarni, Matthew Can, Björn Hartmann
CSCW1