-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Analyze PennText accuracy on 200 DOIs, Select 500 for additional calls #19
Conversation
Note the overall inaccuracy of PennText calls is only 12.4%. This is because accuracy when PennText was true is 94%, and most DOIs are PennText == true. |
The idea here is that curation would continue in |
Pinging @Publicus |
I've reviewed your sample, and it looks good to me. I've updated the facilitation script to use |
Yep.
So this PR is ready to merge? If everything looks good to you, "approve" it under "files changed" > "review changes". |
A quick logistics question: Is your idea that the edits to the facilitation script, and the results from the 500, be in their own PR? If so, yes, this is ready, and I'll mark it as approved. |
Yes |
Refs #15.
Analyzes accuracy on 200 DOIs (100 where PennText was true, 100 where PennText was false).
Select 500 DOIs for an expanded manual assessment. Stratified on PennText to match the proportion in the entire DOI set. Reuses as many DOIs with calls as possible.
Todo: