-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 367
Disambiguate two Felix Schneider: KIT vs. Uni Jena #6531
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ | |
| </paper> | ||
| <paper id="11"> | ||
| <title>Metaphor Detection for Low Resource Languages: From Zero-Shot to Few-Shot Learning in <fixed-case>M</fixed-case>iddle <fixed-case>H</fixed-case>igh <fixed-case>G</fixed-case>erman</title> | ||
| <author><first>Felix</first><last>Schneider</last></author> | ||
| <author id="felix-schneider-fsujena"><first>Felix</first><last>Schneider</last></author> | ||
| <author><first>Sven</first><last>Sickert</last></author> | ||
| <author><first>Phillip</first><last>Brandes</last></author> | ||
| <author><first>Sophie</first><last>Marshall</last></author> | ||
|
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. See issue 4345 : user originally asked about this in a (still open) metadata correction issue that we might want to close : he tried to add an affiliation to one of his namesake's papers hoping to disambiguate that way. Should we close the open issue on this metadata correction or do we ever ingest affiliations using metadata corrections?
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I’m a bit on the fence on this one, I think the reason we record affiliations is because we sometimes get this data in ingestion materials anyway. However, we don’t currently use it for anything or plan to use it for anything, and we definitely don’t want to encourage users to submit metadata requests for this reason. So actually, I guess I’m tending towards “no”. :)
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We do not use affiliations for matching. We collect it in the paper XML only for completeness since it is sometimes provided to us, as @mbollmann mentions. If someone submits it, it doesn't hurt to accept it, but we don't want to encourage it. We even had a field exposing it in the correction dialog and removed that. This makes me wonder if we should just remove the |
||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -8952,6 +8952,16 @@ | |
| - {first: Julian, last: Schlöder} | ||
| - canonical: {first: Laurent, last: Schmitt} | ||
| id: laurent-schmitt | ||
| - canonical: {first: Felix, last: Schneider} | ||
| id: felix-schneider-fsujena | ||
| orcid: 0009-0008-9953-6695 | ||
| degree: Friedrich-Schiller Universität Jena | ||
| comment: Uni Jena | ||
| - canonical: {first: Felix, last: Schneider} | ||
| id: felix-schneider-kit | ||
| orcid: 0009-0006-5226-3023 | ||
| degree: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology | ||
| comment: KIT | ||
|
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Should this person have Pro:
Con:
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I’d say “probably yes”, but I don’t fully remember if we ever made a final decision on our future ID policy, it doesn’t appear to be written down in the wiki at least? @mjpost
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From the author page plan: https://github.com/acl-org/acl-anthology/wiki/Author-Page-Plan#disambiguation (last sentence before next section)
So I thought maybe since the KIT person was the first to ask, he can reserve this ID for himself? Normally when dealing with author page requests right now, I need to reserve the simplest id to the catch-all "May refer to several persons" case because I can't always fully disambiguate the name, but just single out one author from "the rest". So right now, the first person to ask often gets a more complicated ID - unless I can assign each paper to a specific person, like in this case.
Interesting, there are some author page requests recently where for an ambiguous name a new paper got assigned to the catch-all ("May refer to several persons") rather than an existing, more specific ID (with degree institution as suffix) because ORCID-matching isn't enabled yet. However, I didn't check when the new paper got ingested and how the ingestion script looked at that point in time.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There’s definitely lots of discussion on this exact topic buried in the new-author-system mega-thread, which is why I pinged @mjpost in the hopes that he remembers if we took a decision on that :) (don’t have time to dig it up right now)
I don’t know the ingestion scripts super well either, but what I meant is that under the old system, IDs do not need to get written to the XML (by default) except in ambiguous cases, so when there’s ambiguity, some decisions needs to be taken which ID to choose. It may be that we used to default to the "catch-all" ID when there’s no time to disambiguate manually. In any case, that’s the old system — let’s move on with the assumption that the new system will be in place for the next major ingestion.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ack, sorry I missed this. This is my understanding: the first person to request an ID can claim it. As long as we have the ORCID iD, we can match in the future.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. So yes, I would recommend that we keep one person as the base case. |
||
| - canonical: {first: René, last: Schneider} | ||
| variants: | ||
| - {first: Rene, last: Schneider} | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I noticed one paper was missing two authors in metadata compared to the paper, so I added them and added missing hyphens to two other co-author names for the same paper. Compare: