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.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Annotation Process. Before Xxxx et al. (2003), Xxxxx, Amorrortu, & Xxxxxx (1999) performed a RST corpus annotation which led to the development of an annotation protocol that Xxxx et al. (2003) followed. First this work will be summarized.
Sample 1
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 (Xxxxxx 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 (Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx, & Xxxxxx, 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.
Sample 1
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 (Xxxxxxxxx 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 xxx- 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 xxxxxx- xxxx 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 ...
Sample 1

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;

  • 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.

  • Negotiation Process (a) If either the Chief Executive Officer of ICANN (“CEO”) or the Chairperson of the Registry Stakeholder Group (“Chair”) desires to discuss any revision(s) to this Agreement, the CEO or Chair, as applicable, shall provide written notice to the other person, which shall set forth in reasonable detail the proposed revisions to this Agreement (a “Negotiation Notice”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither the CEO nor the Chair may (i) propose revisions to this Agreement that modify any Consensus Policy then existing, (ii) propose revisions to this Agreement pursuant to this Section 7.7 on or before June 30, 2014, or (iii) propose revisions or submit a Negotiation Notice more than once during any twelve (12) month period beginning on July 1, 2014. (b) Following receipt of the Negotiation Notice by either the CEO or the Chair, ICANN and the Working Group (as defined in Section 7.6) shall consult in good faith negotiations regarding the form and substance of the proposed revisions to this Agreement, which shall be in the form of a proposed amendment to this Agreement (the “Proposed Revisions”), for a period of at least ninety (90) calendar days (unless a resolution is earlier reached) and attempt to reach a mutually acceptable agreement relating to the Proposed Revisions (the “Discussion Period”). (c) If, following the conclusion of the Discussion Period, an agreement is reached on the Proposed Revisions, ICANN shall post the mutually agreed Proposed Revisions on its website for public comment for no less than thirty (30) calendar days (the “Posting Period”) and provide notice of such revisions to all Applicable Registry Operators in accordance with Section 7.9. ICANN and the Working Group will consider the public comments submitted on the Proposed Revisions during the Posting Period (including comments submitted by the Applicable Registry Operators). Following the conclusion of the Posting Period, the Proposed Revisions shall be submitted for Registry Operator Approval (as defined in Section 7.6) and approval by the ICANN Board of Directors. If such approvals are obtained, the Proposed Revisions shall be deemed an Approved Amendment (as defined in Section 7.6) by the Applicable Registry Operators and ICANN, and shall be effective and deemed an amendment to this Agreement upon sixty (60) calendar days notice from ICANN to Registry Operator. (d) If, following the conclusion of the Discussion Period, an agreement is not reached between ICANN and the Working Group on the Proposed Revisions, either the CEO or the Chair may provide the other person written notice (the “Mediation Notice”) requiring each party to attempt to resolve the disagreements related to the Proposed Revisions through impartial, facilitative (non-­‐evaluative) mediation in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below. In the event that a Mediation Notice is provided, ICANN and the Working Group shall, within fifteen (15) calendar days thereof, simultaneously post the text of their desired version of the Proposed Revisions and a position paper with respect thereto on ICANN’s website. (i) The mediation shall be conducted by a single mediator selected by the parties. If the parties cannot agree on a mediator within fifteen (15) calendar days following receipt by the CEO or Chair, as applicable, of the Mediation Notice, the parties will promptly select a mutually acceptable mediation provider entity, which entity shall, as soon as practicable following such entity’s selection, designate a mediator, who is a licensed attorney with general knowledge of contract law, who has no ongoing business relationship with either party and, to the extent necessary to mediate the particular dispute, general knowledge of the domain name system. Any mediator must confirm in writing that he or she is not, and will not become during the term of the mediation, an employee, partner, executive officer, director, or security holder of ICANN or an Applicable Registry Operator. If such confirmation is not provided by the appointed mediator, then a replacement mediator shall be appointed pursuant to this Section 7.7(d)(i). (ii) The mediator shall conduct the mediation in accordance with the rules and procedures for facilitative mediation that he or she determines following consultation with the parties. The parties shall discuss the dispute in good faith and attempt, with the mediator’s assistance, to reach an amicable resolution of the dispute. (iii) Each party shall bear its own costs in the mediation. The parties shall share equally the fees and expenses of the mediator. (iv) If an agreement is reached during the mediation, ICANN shall post the mutually agreed Proposed Revisions on its website for the Posting Period and provide notice to all Applicable Registry Operators in accordance with Section 7.9. ICANN and the Working Group will consider the public comments submitted on the agreed Proposed Revisions during the Posting Period (including comments submitted by the Applicable Registry Operators). Following the conclusion of the Posting Period, the Proposed Revisions shall be submitted for Registry Operator Approval and approval by the ICANN Board of Directors. If such approvals are obtained, the Proposed Revisions shall be deemed an Approved Amendment (as defined in Section 7.6) by the Applicable Registry Operators and ICANN, and shall be effective and deemed an amendment to this Agreement upon sixty (60) calendar days notice from ICANN to Registry Operator. (v) If the parties have not resolved the dispute for any reason by the date that is ninety (90) calendar days following receipt by the CEO or Chair, as applicable, of the Mediation Notice, the mediation shall automatically terminate (unless extended by agreement of the parties). The mediator shall deliver to the parties a definition of the issues that could be considered in future arbitration, if invoked. Those issues are subject to the limitations set forth in Section 7.7(e)(ii) below. (e) If, following mediation, ICANN and the Working Group have not reached an agreement on the Proposed Revisions, either the CEO or the Chair may provide the other person written notice (an “Arbitration Notice”) requiring ICANN and the Applicable Registry Operators to resolve the dispute through binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration provisions of Section 5.2, subject to the requirements and limitations of this Section 7.7(e). (i) If an Arbitration Notice is sent, the mediator’s definition of issues, along with the Proposed Revisions (be those from ICANN, the Working Group or both) shall be posted for public comment on ICANN’s website for a period of no less than thirty (30) calendar days. ICANN and the Working Group will consider the public comments submitted on the Proposed Revisions during the Posting Period (including comments submitted by the Applicable Registry Operators), and information regarding such comments and consideration shall be provided to a three (3) person arbitrator panel. Each party may modify its Proposed Revisions before and after the Posting Period. The arbitration proceeding may not commence prior to the closing of such public comment period, and ICANN may consolidate all challenges brought by registry operators (including Registry Operator) into a single proceeding. Except as set forth in this Section 7.7, the arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to Section 5.2. (ii) No dispute regarding the Proposed Revisions may be submitted for arbitration to the extent the subject matter of the Proposed Revisions (i) relates to Consensus Policy, (ii) falls within the subject matter categories set forth in Section 1.2 of Specification 1, or (iii) seeks to amend any of the following provisions or Specifications of this Agreement: Articles 1, 3 and 6; Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.7, 2.9, 2.10, 2.16, 2.17, 2.19, 4.1, 4.2, 7.3, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.10, 7.11, 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.16; Section 2.8 and Specification 7 (but only to the extent such Proposed Revisions seek to implement an RPM not contemplated by Sections 2.8 and Specification 7); Exhibit A; and Specifications 1, 4, 6, 10 and 11. (iii) The mediator will brief the arbitrator panel regarding ICANN and the Working Group’s respective proposals relating to the Proposed Revisions. (iv) No amendment to this Agreement relating to the Proposed Revisions may be submitted for arbitration by either the Working Group or ICANN, unless, in the case of the Working Group, the proposed amendment has received Registry Operator Approval and, in the case of ICANN, the proposed amendment has been approved by the ICANN Board of Directors. (v) In order for the arbitrator panel to approve either ICANN or the Working Group’s proposed amendment relating to the Proposed Revisions, the arbitrator panel must conclude that such proposed amendment is consistent with a balanced application of ICANN’s core values (as described in ICANN’s Bylaws) and reasonable in light of the balancing of the costs and benefits to the business interests of the Applicable Registry Operators and ICANN (as applicable), and the public benefit sought to be achieved by the Proposed Revisions as set forth in such amendment. If the arbitrator panel concludes that either ICANN or the Working Group’s proposed amendment relating to the Proposed Revisions meets the foregoing standard, such amendment shall be effective and deemed an amendment to this Agreement upon sixty (60) calendar days notice from ICANN to Registry Operator and deemed an Approved Amendment hereunder. (f) With respect to an Approved Amendment relating to an amendment proposed by ICANN, Registry may apply in writing to ICANN for an exemption from such amendment pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.6. (g) Notwithstanding anything in this Section 7.7 to the contrary, (a) if Registry Operator provides evidence to ICANN's reasonable satisfaction that the Approved Amendment would materially increase the cost of providing Registry Services, then ICANN will allow up to one-­‐hundred eighty (180) calendar days for the Approved Amendment to become effective with respect to Registry Operator, and (b) no Approved Amendment adopted pursuant to Section 7.7 shall become effective with respect to Registry Operator if Registry Operator provides ICANN with an irrevocable notice of termination pursuant to Section 4.4(b).

  • Verification Procedure (1) The signature file of each processed file is validated. (2) If processed files are pieces of a bigger file, the latter is put together. (3) Each file obtained in the previous step is then decrypted and uncompressed. (4) Each data file contained in the previous step is then validated against the format defined in Part A, Section 9, reference 1 of this Specification. (5) If Part A, Section 9, reference 1 of this Specification includes a verification process, that will be applied at this step. If any discrepancy is found in any of the steps, the Deposit will be considered incomplete.

  • Arbitration Process Any arbitration will be conducted pursuant to the applicable rules (the “Arbitration Rules”) of the American Arbitration Association, as modified herein, to the extent such modifications are not prohibited by the Arbitration Rules. The arbitration will be conducted in Indianapolis, Indiana. The parties will select a single arbitrator, but in the event that the parties are unable to agree, the arbitrator will be appointed pursuant to the Arbitration Rules. The arbitrator will be a practicing attorney with significant expertise in litigating and/or presiding over cases involving the substantive legal areas involved in the dispute. The parties to the arbitration will not request, and the arbitrator will not order, that any discovery be taken or provided, including depositions, interrogatories or document requests, except to the extent the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. The arbitration will be concluded within three months of the date the arbitrator is appointed. The arbitrator’s findings, reasoning, decision, and award will be stated in writing and based upon applicable law. Judgment on the arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. In the event that the arbitration results in an award which imposes an injunction or contains a monetary award in excess of $100,000, the award will be reviewable on appeal initiated by filing notice of appeal with the AAA office within 30 days of the award, governed by the AAA Optional Appellate Arbitration Rules and conducted by a panel of three new arbitrators, ruling by majority, under the procedure for appointment from the national roster of arbitrators. Unless the applicable Arbitration Rules require otherwise, arbitration fees and costs will be shared equally by the claimant(s) and respondent(s), respectively, in any arbitration proceeding. Should the AAA be unavailable, unable or unwilling to accept and administer the arbitration of any claim under these arbitration provisions as written, the parties will agree on a substitute arbitration organization, such as JAMS, that will enforce the arbitration provisions as written. Because this Agreement memorializes a transaction in interstate commerce, the Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of these arbitration provisions. More information about arbitration, including the Arbitration Rules, is available at xxx.xxx.xxx or by calling 0-000-000-0000.

  • Application Procedures i) An employee applies for a listing on the system-wide registry through the employee’s Human Resources Department by completing the form in Appendix A. ii) The institution will immediately forward the completed form to the PSEA who will list eligible employees on the system-wide registry. iii) A registrant is responsible to ensure the information is current and to immediately notify the Employer and the local Union if the registrant is no longer available for employment through the Registry.

  • Seniority Verification Process i. The new school district shall provide the employee with the necessary verification form at the time the employee achieves continuing contract status. ii. The employee must initiate the seniority verification process and forward the necessary verification forms to the previous school district(s) within ninety (90) days of receiving a continuing appointment in the new school district. iii. The previous school district(s) shall make every reasonable effort to retrieve and verify the seniority credits which the employee seeks to port.

  • Collection Procedure Escrow Agent is hereby authorized to deposit the proceeds of each wire in the Escrow Account.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!