Assessment in the GikiCLEF assessment system - GikiCLEF - Cross-language Geographic Information Retrieval from Wikipedia

Current revision

The GikiCLEF assessment system

After all submissions have been received, the assessment process starts by producing an answer pool, in which different justifications for the same answer are considered as different answers.

This pooling mechanism handles differences between HTML and XML, that is, only one will remain in the pool, as well as automatically filters out those pages which are easy to discard as invalid answers (such as disambiguation pages, or redirects).

Then, and in order to minimize the assessors' workload, the system automatically adds the information it already has about the topics, namely that some answers are correct and self-justified, or correct (but not self justified), provided this information is already present in the topic management system.

An assessor is then presented with a list of answers for which s/he has to - either check the correctness through inspecting the pages and the justifications - or just check the justifications because it is already known by the system that the answer is correct but not self justified Also, the assessor can add comments about interesting issues (incompatible information in different languages, Wikipedia link translations incorrect, etc.) which may have a bearing on the evaluation score

The system allows the same answers to be evaluated by different assessors, and then dutifully stores all assessments, indexed by assessor, so that a subsequent a conflict-solving procedure can be stared if they do not agree.

Assessors do not have access to the other assessors judgements while assessing, nor to the comments already entered about this particular answer.

After all answers in the pool have been classified, it is time for the evaluation system to take control.

Back to the main page

Documentation of the topic and assessment system (in progress, so far only in Portuguese)

Retrieved from "https://www.linguateca.pt/GikiCLEF/index.php/Assessment_in_the_GikiCLEF_assessment_system"

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 Also, the assessor can add comments about interesting issues (incompatible information in different languages, Wikipedia link translations incorrect, etc.) which may have a bearing on the evaluation score
-The system allows the same answers to be evaluated by different assessors, and then start have a conflict-solving procedure if they do not agree.
+The system allows the same answers to be evaluated by different assessors, and then dutifully stores all assessments, indexed by assessor, so that a subsequent a conflict-solving procedure can be stared if they do not agree.
+Assessors do not have access to the other assessors judgements while assessing, nor to the comments already entered about this particular answer.
 After all answers in the pool have been classified, it is time for the evaluation system to take control.
@@ Line 19: / Line 21: @@
 [[Documentation]] of the topic and assessment system (in progress, so far only in Portuguese)
-Upon entering the system, and choosing the option ''Assess answers'', each assessor receives a list of answers to assess, depending on the languages he was registered with and chosen so that some of them will also be assessed by others.
-Assessors are only requested to assess answers which are not yet stored in the system as correct and self-justified. Also, when the system already knows that a particulart answer is correct but that the page in itself does not provide a justificatin for the answer, the assessor does not need to say that again.
-If on the other hand the answer is known by the system to be correct and in need of external justification, the assessor is only required to check the validity of the justification provided.
-Finally, if a particular answer was considered incorrect by an assessor, no more equal answers (with different justifications) will be presented to that assessor for assessing.
-An assessor is however free to comment and check all answers if s/he wishes to, as well as fill in comments about things that are not or may not be totally clear.