Annotation Process Sample Clauses

Annotation Process. To carry out the annotation work, we recruited five Dutch archaeology students at the Bachelor level. We specifically selected students in their second and third year, as some basic knowledge of archaeology is extremely helpful in determining whether a word is a specific entity or not. The students were asked to annotate a total of 16 hours each, over a two week period, during which they could come and work at times that suited them, a few hours at a time. We opted not to have the students work a whole day on this task, as the annotation process is tedious and monotonous, which makes it hard to keep concentration. Loss in concentration can cause mislabelling, and so having them work for only small amounts of time might help prevent this. The students were first asked to thoughtfully read the guidelines and ask any questions. During annotation, we were always present to resolve difficult sentences and entities and explain to the students how to handle these. The students reported this to be very helpful, and learned from each other’s prob- lems. Most of these issues were relatively rare edge case though, and the original annotation guidelines covered most encountered entities sufficiently.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Annotation Process. Our annotation task consisted of annotating persua- sion techniques in a corpus consisting of circa 1600 news articles revolving around various globally dis- cussed topics in six languages: English, French, German, Italian, Polish, and Russian, using the taxonomy introduced earlier. A balanced mix of mainstream media and “alternative” media sources that could potentially spread mis/disinformation were considered for the sake of creating the dataset. Furthermore, sources with different political orien- tation were covered as well. The pool of annotators consisted of circa 40 per- sons, all native or near-native speakers of the lan- guage they annotated. Most of the annotators were either media analysts or researchers and experts in (computational) linguistics, where approximately 80% of the annotators had prior experience in per- forming linguistic annotations of news-like texts. A thorough training was provided to all annotators which consisted of: (a) reading a 60-page anno- tation guidelines (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2023a) — an excerpt thereof is provided in Appendix C), (b) participating in online multi-choice question-like training, (c) carrying out pilot annotations on ▇▇▇- ple documents, and (d) joint sharing experience with other annotators and discussions with the or- ganisers of the annotation task. Subsequently, each document was annotated by at least two annotators independently. On a weekly basis reports were sent to annotator pairs highlighting complementary and potentially conflicting annotations in order to con- verge to a common understanding of the task, and regular meetings were held with all annotators to align and to discuss specific annotation cases. Annotations were curated in two steps. In the first step (document-level curation) the independent annotations were jointly discussed by the annota- tors and a curator, where the latter was a more experienced annotator, whose role was to ▇▇▇▇▇▇- ▇▇▇▇ making a decision about the final annotations, including: (a) merging the complementary anno- tations (tagged only by one annotator), and (b) re- solving the identified potential label conflicts. In the second step (corpus-level curation) a global consistency analysis was carried out. The rationale behind this second step was to identify inconsisten- cies that are difficult to spot using single-document annotation view and do comparison at corpus level, e.g., comparing whether identical or near-identical text snippets were tagged with the same or a ...
View Source
Annotation Process. Prior to the annotation process, the annotators were trained with the annotation guideline. The pursued annotation process of the TDB can be explained in the following four steps (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2009): 1- Annotations were performed for a particular connective by three or two annotators. The annotators performed a particular discourse connective and its arguments’ annotations file by file for the whole corpus files. In this step each annotator worked individually. 2- Afterwards, individual annotations were compared. Then, the disagreements found were discussed, and solved by the project group. 3- Annotation guideline was revised according to the discussions. 4- The agreed annotations were checked if they completely obey the annotation guideline. The above annotation process was cycled for all discourse connectives. However, in later phases of the annotation effort, the TDB group decided that the inter-annotator reliability has stabilized, and they switched to a more rapid annotation strategy. In the new strategy, the TDB group kept the annotation processes same, except the annotators. According to the new strategy, a pair of annotators and an individual annotator (practically two annotator teams) performed the annotations (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2010). In the process defined above, the inter-annotator reliability shall be measured right after the first step because by the second step, annotator’s individual decisions are judged and corrected. Thanks to the version control software that the TDB group uses, the annotation data, which were produced at each step of the annotation process, can be retrieved easily.
View Source
Annotation Process. Before ▇▇▇▇ et al. (2003), ▇▇▇▇▇, Amorrortu, & ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (1999) performed a RST corpus annotation which led to the development of an annotation protocol that ▇▇▇▇ et al. (2003) followed. First this work will be summarized.
View Source

Related to Annotation Process

  • Application Process The employees wishing to enter into a job share arrangement will apply in writing to the Employer and forward a copy to the Union outlining the proposed commencement date of the job share, how the hours and days of work will be shared and how communication and continuity of work will be maintained. The Employer shall communicate a decision on a job share request in writing to the applicants. Applications to Job Sharing shall not be unreasonably denied.

  • Selection Process The Mortgage Loans were selected from among the outstanding one- to four-family mortgage loans in the Seller's portfolio at the related Closing Date as to which the representations and warranties set forth in Subsection 9.02 could be made and such selection was not made in a manner so as to affect adversely the interests of the Purchaser;

  • Mediation Process A. Mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that may be requested by the City or the PBA. It is an alternative, not a substitute for the formal arbitration process contained in Section 19.8 above. Mediation is an informal process in which a neutral third party assists the opposing parties in reaching a voluntary, negotiated resolution of a charge of discipline. The decision to mediate is completely voluntary for the PBA and the City. Mediation gives the parties the opportunity to discuss the issues raised in the charging document, clear up misunderstandings, determine the underlying interests or concerns, find areas of agreement and, ultimately, incorporate those areas of agreement into solutions. A mediator does not resolve the charge or impose a decision on the parties. Instead, the mediator helps the parties to agree on a mutually acceptable resolution. The mediation process is strictly confidential. Information disclosed during mediation will not be revealed to anyone. B. If both parties agree, a mediation session conducted by a trained and experienced mediator shall be scheduled at a mutually convenient date and time. Either party may choose to have an attorney represent them during mediation. Persons attending the mediation session shall have the authority to resolve the dispute. If mediation is unsuccessful, the parties may proceed to follow the provisions for Arbitration. Information disclosed during mediation will not be revealed to anyone. C. The parties and, if they desire, their representatives and/or attorneys, are invited to attend a mediation session. No one else may attend without the permission of the parties and the consent of the mediator(s). D. The mediator(s) will not function as the representative of either party. However, the mediator(s) may assist the parties in understanding their rights and the terms of any proposed settlement agreement. Each party acknowledges being advised to seek independent legal review prior to signing any settlement agreement. E. The parties acknowledge that the mediator(s) possesses the discretion to terminate the mediation at any time of any impasse occurs or either party or the mediator deems the case inappropriate for mediation. F. Prior to mediation, both the City and the PBA (or Employee, only in disciplinary matters) shall enter into a confidentiality agreement, as follows: 1. This is an agreement by the parties to participate in a mediation involving the City against the above named employee. The parties understand that mediation is a voluntary process, which may be terminated at any time. 2. The parties agree to participate voluntarily in mediation in an effort to resolve the charge(s) filed by the City. 3. The parties agree that all matters discussed during the mediation are confidential, unless otherwise discoverable, and cannot be used as evidence in any subsequent administrative or judicial proceeding. Confidentiality, however, will not extend to threats of imminent physical harm or incidents of actual violence that occur during the mediation. 4. Any communications between the mediator(s) and/or the parties are considered dispute resolution communications with a neutral and will be kept confidential. 5. The parties agree not to subpoena the mediator(s) or compel the mediator(s) to produce any documents provided by a party in any pending or future administrative or judicial proceeding. The mediator(s) will not voluntarily testify on behalf of a party in any pending or future administrative or judicial proceeding. The parties further agree that the mediator(s) will be held harmless for any claim arising from the mediation process. 6. The parties recognize and agree that the City is subject to Chapter 119, Fla. Stat., relating to public documents. Therefore, all information including all notes, records, or documents generated during the course of the mediation shall be subject to the exemption contained in Section 119.071 (d)(1), Fla. Stats., until the settlement of the matter, or the conclusion of the arbitration, if any, with the exception of the personal notes of the mediator. 7. If a settlement is reached by all the parties, the agreement shall be reduced to writing and when signed shall be binding upon all parties to the agreement, unless the agreement requires City Commission approval, in which case the agreement will not become binding until publicly approved by the City Commission. Said agreement shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Fla. Stats. If the charge(s) is not resolved through mediation, the parties may proceed to follow the provisions for arbitration.

  • Evaluation Process ‌ A. The immediate supervisor will meet with an employee at the start of their review period to discuss performance expectations. The employee will receive copies of their performance expectations as well as notification of any modifications made during the review period. Employee work performance will be evaluated during probationary, trial service and transition review periods and at least annually thereafter. Notification will be given to a probationary or trial service employee whose work performance is determined to be unsatisfactory. B. The supervisor will discuss the evaluation with the employee. The employee will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the evaluation. The discussion may include such topics as: 1. Reviewing the employee’s performance; 2. Identifying ways the employee may improve their performance; 3. Updating the employee’s position description, if necessary; 4. Identifying performance goals and expectations for the next appraisal period; and 5. Identifying employee training and development needs. C. The performance evaluation process will include, but not be limited to, a written performance evaluation on forms used by the Employer, the employee’s signature acknowledging receipt of the forms, and any comments by the employee. A copy of the performance evaluation will be provided to the employee at the time of the review. A copy of the final performance evaluation, including any employee or reviewer comments, will be provided to the employee. The original performance evaluation forms, including the employee’s comments, will be maintained in the employee’s personnel file. D. If an employee disagrees with their performance evaluation, the employee has the right to attach a rebuttal. E. The performance evaluation process is subject to the grievance procedure in Article 30. The specific content of a performance evaluation is not subject to the grievance procedure. F. Performance evaluations will not be used to initiate personnel actions such as transfer, promotion, or discipline.

  • Escalation Process If Customer believes in good faith that Customer has not received quality or timely assistance in response to a support request or that Customer urgently need to communicate important support related business issues to Service Provider’s management, Customer may escalate the support request by contacting Service Provider and requesting that the support request be escalated to work with Customer to develop an action plan.