Difference between revisions of "Data Jamboree 2/Annotation Experiment"
(→Raw data from participants) |
|||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
====Raw data from participants==== | ====Raw data from participants==== | ||
+ | * [[Media:Consistency-expt-II-rawdata.xls|download excel file]] | ||
[[Category:Data Jamboree 2]] | [[Category:Data Jamboree 2]] | ||
[[Category:Curation]] | [[Category:Curation]] |
Revision as of 14:19, 8 October 2008
Contents
Background:
The curation experiment was given to five curators on the third day of the second data jamboree. The goals of the experiment were to assess curation consistency among a group of new curators, and to identify areas of improvement in curator training, ontology development, and software improvement.
Participant Training:
Only one of the five curators had experience using Phenex prior to the data roundup. Training for all curators consisted of:
- A hands-on, group curation exercise led and assisted by experienced curators given on the first day of the data roundup
- Two days of individual curation work on publications related to each participant's area of taxonomic expertise, with assistance from project personnel
- For reference, participants were given an Annotation Guide with examples of character types commonly encountered in the fish systematic literature
Results:
Character Summary and Suggestions for Improvement
1. Presence or absence of intercalar: (0) present; (1) absent.3
- Consistency: 5/5
- Summary: all curators annotated this character identically
2. Opercle depth to width ratio: (0) less than two; (1) about two or greater than two. Essentially, this character distinguishes between those taxa with a short, relatively broad opercle and those with a tall relatively slender opercle.2
- Consistency: 1/5
- Summary of variable annotations:
- The majority of curators used various size qualities (e.g., increased width; decreased depth) to describe differences in shape.
- Suggestions to improve consistency:
- Definitions of size terms need to be improved; also, size and it's children do not share a parent with shape.
- Annotation of characters with detailed size information should be annotated to higher level (shape in this case).
3. Number of unbranched plus branched pelvic-fin rays: (0) 11; (1) nine; (2) more than 11.3
- Consistency: 3/5
- Summary of variable annotations:
- Increased count used as quality term for state 2 by one curator; this is OK because parent is_a count
- Incorrect entity chosen by two curators (pelvic fin actinotrichium instead of pelvic fin lepidotrichium)
- Quality and Count left blank by one curator
4. Basihyal: (0) present and ossified; (1) present and cartilaginous; (2) absent.1
- Consistency:
- Summary of variable annotations:
- most curators recorded both presence and absence of bone and cartilage terms for each state
- bone composition (cartilaginous vs. ossified) used by one curator for quality
- Suggestions and group discussion:
- for state 2: basihyal cartilage absent implies basihyal bone absent (because the latter develops from the former)
- in fact it can also be that the cartilage is absent b/c it has developed into the bone (completely ossified)
- hence need to add that basihyal is absent too
- graph view can be very helpful to visualize develops_from relationships
- for state 2: basihyal cartilage absent implies basihyal bone absent (because the latter develops from the former)
5. Position of anterior margin of nasal: (0) falling short of lateral process of mesethmoid (= lateral ethmoid wing of Weitzman, 1962); (1) extending anteriorly to overlie or extend beyond lateral process of mesethmoid.3
- Consistency: 1/5
- Summary:
- Incorrect entity (naris vs. nasal bone) used in post-composition
- Monadic qualty incorrectly used rather than relational quality
- Post-composed entity term chosen rather than approporiate pre-composed term
- Relational structural quality used rather than relational positional quality
- Suggestions:
- software should prevent filling in relative entities for qualities that aren't relational
- full text search of the definitions would be very useful
6. Number of hypurals in upper lobe of caudal fin: (0) four; (1) three.2
- Consistency: 2/5
- Incorrect post-composition for entity (in various ways; see individual annotations below)
- Quality and Count left blank
- contained_in used for post-composition
- Suggestions:
- display definitions for relationship types (contained_in vs. part_of)
- hypural can also be "contained in" upper lobe of caudal fin
7. Presence or absence of medially directed, spine-like process on ventral surface of post-temporal: (0) present; (1) absent.3
- Consistency: 3/5
- Summary:
- post-composed entity incorrectly started with quality term
- post-composed entity term lacking spatial information
- Suggestions:
- Software should ensure that entity starts with a spatial or anatomy term if post-composed, not a quality
8. Presence or absence of contact between frontal and pterotic: (0) frontal and pterotic bones in contact; (1) pterotic excluded from contact with frontal by sphenotic.3
- Consistency: 5/5 for state 0; 4/5 for state 1
- Summary:
- curator mistakenly(?) used same quality for both states
- Suggestions:
- Record free-text information not used in annotation in the comments field (e.g., sphenotic needs to go into the comment field)
9. Orientation of infrapharyngobranchial 1: (0) proximal tip anteriorly directed; (1) proximal tip posteriorly directed.1
- Consistency: 2/5
- monadic quality term used incorrectly (related entity used in annotation)
- less specific entity term used in post-composition (pharyngobranchial vs. pharyngobranchial 1)
- spatial term incorrectly used as quality term
- spatial term incorrectly used as related entity
- Suggestions:
- software should prevent filling in spatial or monadic terms for quality if related entity field is filled.
- if too complex to express the exact nature of the orientatin, then annotate quality as "orientation"
10. Dermosphenotic (0) triangular; (1) triradiate; (2) tubular.1
- Consistency: 5/5
- Summary: all curators annotated this character equivalently
- Discussion about approporiateness of tripartite for state 1
References:
1Hilton, 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.
2Sanger, TJ and AR McCune. 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.
3Zanata AM and 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.
Comparison of Consistency Experiment I vs. II
Character # | # Participants with
Completed Annotations (n=4; Exp. I) |
% Consistency with Key (Exp. I) | # Participants with
Completed Annotations (n=5; Exp. II) |
% Consistency with Key (Exp. II) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 4 | 100 | 5 | 100 |
2 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 20 |
3 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 60 |
4 | 4 | 0 | 5 | |
5 | 3 | 33 | 5 | 20 |
6 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 40 |
7 | 4 | 50 | 5 | 60 |
8 | 3 | 33 | 5 | 100 |
9 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 40 |
10 | 2 | 50 | 5 | 100 |