You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
How to take multiple factors into account when evaluating a Game with a Purpose? How is player behaviour or participation influenced by different incentives? How does player engagement impact their accuracy in solving tasks? In this paper, we present a detailed investigation of multiple factors affecting the evaluation of a GWAP and we show how they impact on the achieved results. We inform our study with the experimental assessment of a GWAP designed to solve a multinomial classification task.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: Scientific research performed with the involvement of the broader public (the crowd) attracts increasing attention from scientists and policy makers. A key premise is that project organizers may be able to draw on underused human resources to advance research at relatively low cost. Despite a growing number of examples, systematic research on the effort contributions volunteers are willing to make to crowd science projects is lacking. Analyzing data on seven different projects, we quantify the financial value volunteers can bring by comparing their unpaid contributions with counterfactual costs in traditional or online labor markets. The volume of total contributions is substantial, although some projects are much more successful in attracting effort than others. Moreover, contributions received by projects are very uneven across time—a tendency toward declining activity is interrupted by spikes typically resulting from outreach efforts or media attention. Analyzing user-level data, we find that most contributors participate only once and with little effort, leaving a relatively small share of users who return responsible for most of the work. Although top contributor status is earned primarily through higher levels of effort, top contributors also tend to work faster. This speed advantage develops over multiple sessions, suggesting that it reflects learning rather than inherent differences in skills. Our findings inform recent discussions about potential benefits from crowd science, suggest that involving the crowd may be more effective for some kinds of projects than others, provide guidance for project managers, and raise important questions for future research.

[2]: Complexity is crucial to characterize tasks performed by humans through computer systems. Yet, the theory and practice of crowdsourcing currently lacks a clear understanding of task complexity, hindering the design of effective and efficient execution interfaces or fair monetary rewards. To understand how complexity is perceived and distributed over crowdsourcing tasks, we instrumented an experiment where we asked workers to evaluate the complexity of 61 real-world re-instantiated crowdsourcing tasks. We show that task complexity, while being subjective, is coherently perceived across workers; on the other hand, it is significantly influenced by task type. Next, we develop a high-dimensional regression model, to assess the influence of three classes of structural features (metadata, content, and visual) on task complexity, and ultimately use them to measure task complexity. Results show that both the appearance and the language used in task description can accurately predict task complexity. Finally, we apply the same feature set to predict task performance, based on a set of 5 years-worth tasks in Amazon MTurk. Results show that features related to task complexity can improve the quality of task performance prediction, thus demonstrating the utility of complexity as a task modeling property.

[3]: Crowdsourcing through human-computing games is an increasingly popular practice for classifying and analyzing scientific data. Early contributions such as Phylo have now been running for several years. The analysis of the performance of these systems enables us to identify patterns that contributed to their successes, but also possible pitfalls. In this paper, we review the results and user statistics collected since 2010 by our platform Phylo, which aims to engage citizens in comparative genome analysis through a casual tile matching computer game. We also identify features that allow predicting a task difficulty, which is essential for channeling them to human players with the appropriate skill level. Finally, we show how our platform has been used to quickly improve a reference alignment of Ebola virus sequences.
Some work exists on cross-feature analysis of GWAPs [3] and similarly on citizen science [1] and crowdsourcing [2] ; our goal is to contribute to making such evaluation easier to replicate and reproduce.