Skip to content

Conversation

@le1nux
Copy link
Member

@le1nux le1nux commented May 6, 2025

No description provided.

@le1nux le1nux requested a review from rrutmann May 12, 2025 19:23
Copy link
Collaborator

@rrutmann rrutmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please have a look at the missing file. Other than that the PR looks good to me, the other remarks I made are optional

)

document_scores_df = pd.DataFrame(document_scores)

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is the filtering necessary? We handle the case of missing / ummatched document IDs later by filtering on documents that are common for the annotators we are currently comparing

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A few comments on the notebook:

  • You define jsonl_path = "annotations__educational_content__en__gt.jsonl". This fails for me because the file is missing. Should this be gt_annotations_path instead?
  • Why do we plot the standard deviations as a histogram, but the spread as a cumulative distribution?
  • In the section about spreads, why do we print Document ID 1 and 2? Shouldn't they be the same? Or is this just a sanity check?
  • For the evaluation of our predictions, we aggregate the human annotations using majority voting. In the notebook, we're only looking at the mean of the human annotations. Should we add info about the majority voting as well? E.g. we could add a plot of the distribution of the human annotations aggregated with majority voting.

The computations look correct to me.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants