Difference between revisions of "Data Jamboree 1/Annotation Experiment"
From phenoscape
(→Background and Participant Preparation) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====Background and Participant Preparation==== | ====Background and Participant Preparation==== | ||
| − | An annotation experiment was conducted on day 2 of the Phenoscape Data Jamboree in order to assess curation consistency among participants. Participant training consisted of a hands-on group annotation exercise on day 1, and individual work on each participant's own publications with assistance from project personnel on | + | An annotation experiment was conducted on day 2 of the Phenoscape Data Jamboree in order to assess curation consistency among the four trained participants. Participant training consisted of a hands-on group annotation exercise on day 1, and individual work on each participant's own publications with assistance from project personnel on days 1 and 2. Participants were also given an Annotation Guide with examples of character types commonly encountered in the fish systematic literature. Participants were given 2 hours to annotate 10 characters (plus one extra credit) taken from three publications (Hilton 2003, Sanger and McCune 2002, Zanata and Vari 2005). |
====Results==== | ====Results==== | ||
Revision as of 18:12, 24 April 2008
Background and Participant Preparation
An annotation experiment was conducted on day 2 of the Phenoscape Data Jamboree in order to assess curation consistency among the four trained participants. Participant training consisted of a hands-on group annotation exercise on day 1, and individual work on each participant's own publications with assistance from project personnel on days 1 and 2. Participants were also given an Annotation Guide with examples of character types commonly encountered in the fish systematic literature. Participants were given 2 hours to annotate 10 characters (plus one extra credit) taken from three publications (Hilton 2003, Sanger and McCune 2002, Zanata and Vari 2005).
Results
Summary Statistics
| Character # | # Participants with Annotation* | % Consistency with Key | Specific Issues |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | 100 | |
| 2 | 3 | 0 | post-composition of Q term for relative length |
| 3 | 3 | 0 | incorrect recording of count values |
| 4 | 4 | 0 | TAO term definition confusion (bone vs. cartilage) |
| 5 | 3 | 33 | E post-composition; choice of appropriate Q |
| 6 | 4 | 0 | E post-composition |
| 7 | 4 | 50 | E post-composition |
| 8 | 3 | 33 | choice of appropriate Q term |
| 9 | 3 | 0 | E post-composition; choice of appropriate Q term |
| 10 | 2 | 50 | choice of appropriate Q term |
| EC | 2 | 25 | anatomy term post-composition; choice of appropriate quality term |
- *incomplete annotations due to software issues were excluded
References
- Hilton EJ. 2003. Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 137: 1-100.
- Sanger TJ, McCune AR. 2002. Comparative osteology of the Danio (Cyprinidae: Ostariophysi) axial skeleton with comments on Danio relationships based on molecules and morphology. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 135:529-546.
- Zanata AM, Vari RP. 2005. The family Alestidae (Ostariophysi, Characiformes): a phylogenetic analysis of a trans-Atlantic clade. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 145: 1-144.
