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 day 1 and 2. Participants were also given an Annotation Guide with examples of character types commonly encountered in the fish systematic literature.
+
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.