Problem Areas Sample Clauses

Problem Areas. Phase 1 2 3 4 Total 1. Nodes with C 9.20 2.67 8.38 5.96 6.73 2. Position of C 0.80 0.67 1.80 3.25 1.92 3. Adjuncts with C 4.80 2.00 3.59 4.88 4.17 4. Unit expressions 4.00 6.67 4.79 3.52 4.38 5. Attributes 36.40 48.67 27.54 34.15 35.90 6. Settings 8.40 10.67 8.98 11.38 10.04 7. Errors 3.60 7.33 8.98 2.98 4.91 8. Other cases 32.80 21.33 35.93 33.88 31.94 9. C/T v. F 72.40 82.00 62.87 69.65 71.15 10. C v. T 22.00 11.33 33.53 28.18 24.79 Table 3 gives a list of particular theoretical areas that we have especially focused on. We have taken into account only those cases where the annotators disagreed between two values. We consider the cases where each annotator used a different value for contextual boundness to be too unclear, moreover they occur very scarcely in the data (they constitute in each phase less than one percent of all cases). The percentages in the table say how frequent individual phenomena are relative to all disagreements. Table 3: Problem areas and proportions of disagreements Individual disagreements in annotation are not considered as errors, but as potential values of contextual boundness – we never can accurately determine the contextual boundness of a node, because we cannot dispose of ample enough (complete) context for a univocal decision. Therefore, the values of contextual boundness of individual nodes are only to be taken as more or less probable. The distribution of diverging annotations of a node serve to evaluate these tendencies.

Problem Areas a. The original focus was on smaller classes (of about 40); increasingly the courses are in the hundreds. b. Departments requested the fourth credit on the basis of GTF/discussion hours, and then found their budgets could not support the sections. c. Most important, and I speak for myself on this point, it is not at all clear how the additional work is monitored/graded. d. The fault lies not just with departments; the various university and college committees have not given consistent advice or set clear standards for the additional work. In general there is not systematic standard for accounting for the additional work.