人群建模:聚集非专家观点作为理论化方法

Q2 Decision Sciences International Journal of Crowd Science Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI:10.1108/IJCS-04-2021-0015
Octavio González Aguilar
{"title":"人群建模:聚集非专家观点作为理论化方法","authors":"Octavio González Aguilar","doi":"10.1108/IJCS-04-2021-0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose – This paper aims to introduce a crowd-based method for theorizing. The purpose is not to achieve a scientific theory. On the contrary, the purpose is to achieve a model that may challenge current scientific theories or lead research in new phenomena. Design/methodology/approach – This paper describes a case study of theorizing by using a crowd-based method. The first section of the paper introduces what do the authors know about crowdsourcing, crowd science and the aggregation of non-expert views. The second section details the case study. The third section analyses the aggregation. Finally, the fourth section elaborates the conclusions, limitations and future research. Findings – This document answers to what extent the crowd-based method produces similar results to theories tested and published by experts. Research limitations/implications - From a theoretical perspective, this study provides evidence to support the research agenda associated with crowd science. The main limitation of this study is that the crowded research models and the expert research models are compared in terms of the graph. Nevertheless, some academics may argue that theory building is about an academic heritage. Practical implications - This paper exemplifies how to obtain an expert-level research model by aggregating the views of non-experts. Social implications - This study is particularly important for institutions with limited access to costly databases, labs and researchers. Originality/value – Previous research suggested that a collective of individuals may help to conduct all the stages of a research endeavour. Nevertheless, a formal method for theorizing based on the aggregation of non-expert views does not exist. This paper provides the method and evidence of its practical implications.","PeriodicalId":32381,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Crowd Science","volume":"5 3","pages":"239-256"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel7/9736195/9826703/09826704.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crowd modelling: aggregating non-expert views as a method for theorizing\",\"authors\":\"Octavio González Aguilar\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/IJCS-04-2021-0015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose – This paper aims to introduce a crowd-based method for theorizing. The purpose is not to achieve a scientific theory. On the contrary, the purpose is to achieve a model that may challenge current scientific theories or lead research in new phenomena. Design/methodology/approach – This paper describes a case study of theorizing by using a crowd-based method. The first section of the paper introduces what do the authors know about crowdsourcing, crowd science and the aggregation of non-expert views. The second section details the case study. The third section analyses the aggregation. Finally, the fourth section elaborates the conclusions, limitations and future research. Findings – This document answers to what extent the crowd-based method produces similar results to theories tested and published by experts. Research limitations/implications - From a theoretical perspective, this study provides evidence to support the research agenda associated with crowd science. The main limitation of this study is that the crowded research models and the expert research models are compared in terms of the graph. Nevertheless, some academics may argue that theory building is about an academic heritage. Practical implications - This paper exemplifies how to obtain an expert-level research model by aggregating the views of non-experts. Social implications - This study is particularly important for institutions with limited access to costly databases, labs and researchers. Originality/value – Previous research suggested that a collective of individuals may help to conduct all the stages of a research endeavour. Nevertheless, a formal method for theorizing based on the aggregation of non-expert views does not exist. This paper provides the method and evidence of its practical implications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32381,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Crowd Science\",\"volume\":\"5 3\",\"pages\":\"239-256\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel7/9736195/9826703/09826704.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Crowd Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9826704/\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Decision Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Crowd Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9826704/","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Decision Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的——本文旨在介绍一种基于人群的理论化方法。目的不是为了实现科学的理论。相反,目的是实现一个可能挑战当前科学理论或领导新现象研究的模型。设计/方法论/方法——本文描述了一个使用基于人群的方法进行理论化的案例研究。论文的第一部分介绍了作者对众包、众科学和非专家观点聚合的了解。第二部分详细介绍了案例研究。第三部分对聚合进行分析。最后,第四部分阐述了研究结论、局限性和未来的研究方向。研究结果——这份文件回答了基于人群的方法在多大程度上产生了与专家测试和发表的理论相似的结果。研究局限性/影响-从理论角度来看,本研究提供了支持与人群科学相关的研究议程的证据。本研究的主要局限性在于,拥挤研究模型和专家研究模型在图方面进行了比较。然而,一些学者可能会认为,理论建设是一种学术遗产。实际意义——本文举例说明了如何通过汇集非专家的观点来获得专家级的研究模型。社会影响——这项研究对于访问昂贵数据库、实验室和研究人员有限的机构来说尤其重要。独创性/价值-先前的研究表明,个人的集体可能有助于进行研究工作的所有阶段。然而,基于非专家观点的集合进行理论化的正式方法并不存在。本文提供了其实际意义的方法和证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Crowd modelling: aggregating non-expert views as a method for theorizing
Purpose – This paper aims to introduce a crowd-based method for theorizing. The purpose is not to achieve a scientific theory. On the contrary, the purpose is to achieve a model that may challenge current scientific theories or lead research in new phenomena. Design/methodology/approach – This paper describes a case study of theorizing by using a crowd-based method. The first section of the paper introduces what do the authors know about crowdsourcing, crowd science and the aggregation of non-expert views. The second section details the case study. The third section analyses the aggregation. Finally, the fourth section elaborates the conclusions, limitations and future research. Findings – This document answers to what extent the crowd-based method produces similar results to theories tested and published by experts. Research limitations/implications - From a theoretical perspective, this study provides evidence to support the research agenda associated with crowd science. The main limitation of this study is that the crowded research models and the expert research models are compared in terms of the graph. Nevertheless, some academics may argue that theory building is about an academic heritage. Practical implications - This paper exemplifies how to obtain an expert-level research model by aggregating the views of non-experts. Social implications - This study is particularly important for institutions with limited access to costly databases, labs and researchers. Originality/value – Previous research suggested that a collective of individuals may help to conduct all the stages of a research endeavour. Nevertheless, a formal method for theorizing based on the aggregation of non-expert views does not exist. This paper provides the method and evidence of its practical implications.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Crowd Science
International Journal of Crowd Science Decision Sciences-Decision Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Contents Front Cover Improving Energy Harvesting System from Ambient RF Sources in Social Systems with Overcrowding Editorial of Cyber-Physical Social Systems and Smart Environments CGLS Method for Efficient Equalization of OFDM Systems Under Doubly Dispersive Fading Channels with an Application Into 6G Communications in Smart Overcrowded
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1