mirror of
https://github.com/zoo-apps/papers.git
synced 2026-11-03 14:59:55 +00:00
85 lines
2.7 KiB
TeX
85 lines
2.7 KiB
TeX
\section{Empirical Results}
|
|
|
|
\label{sec:results}
|
|
% ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Operational Summary}
|
|
|
|
\begin{table}[H]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\caption{Zoo DAO operational statistics (18-month period).}
|
|
\label{tab:ops}
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lc}
|
|
\toprule
|
|
\textbf{Metric} & \textbf{Value} \\
|
|
\midrule
|
|
Total proposals submitted & 287 \\
|
|
Proposals funded & 143 (49.8\%) \\
|
|
Countries represented & 34 \\
|
|
Total funding distributed & \$4.7M equivalent \\
|
|
Mean project size & \$32{,}900 \\
|
|
Unique voters (per round) & 847 $\pm$ 214 \\
|
|
Mean review turnaround & 8.4 days \\
|
|
Researcher satisfaction & 4.3/5.0 \\
|
|
Published outputs & 89 papers, 34 datasets, 21 tools \\
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
\end{table}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Funding Allocation Quality}
|
|
|
|
\begin{table}[H]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\caption{Funding allocation quality: QV vs.\ simulated 1T1V.}
|
|
\label{tab:allocation}
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
|
|
\toprule
|
|
\textbf{Metric} & \textbf{QV} & \textbf{1T1V (simulated)} \\
|
|
\midrule
|
|
Correlation with citation impact & 0.67 & 0.47 \\
|
|
Gini coefficient of funding & 0.34 & 0.71 \\
|
|
Projects from Global South (\%) & 38\% & 12\% \\
|
|
Novel research topics funded (\%) & 44\% & 27\% \\
|
|
Post-funding completion rate & 87\% & 82\% \\
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
\end{table}
|
|
|
|
QV allocation shows 41\% higher correlation with citation impact, lower
|
|
Gini coefficient, triple the Global South funding rate, and more novel
|
|
topics funded.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Peer Review Performance}
|
|
|
|
\begin{table}[H]
|
|
\centering
|
|
\caption{Peer review comparison.}
|
|
\label{tab:review_compare}
|
|
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
|
|
\toprule
|
|
\textbf{Metric} & \textbf{Zoo DAO} & \textbf{Traditional} \\
|
|
\midrule
|
|
Median review time & 8.4 days & 97 days \\
|
|
Review completion rate & 94\% & 68\% \\
|
|
Author satisfaction & 4.3/5.0 & 3.1/5.0 \\
|
|
Review length (words) & 1{,}247 & 892 \\
|
|
Actionable suggestions per review & 4.8 & 2.1 \\
|
|
\bottomrule
|
|
\end{tabular}
|
|
\end{table}
|
|
|
|
Staking produces 10x faster, more complete, and higher-quality reviews.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Retroactive Funding Impact}
|
|
|
|
After three rounds, 47 public goods received awards:
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item 82\% of funded tools saw increased adoption post-award.
|
|
\item 67\% of funded datasets received new citations within 3 months.
|
|
\item Recipients were 2.4x more likely to contribute subsequent
|
|
public goods.
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
|
|
|
|
% ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|