Skip to content
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

update column specs in spec.yaml #5

Open
mllewis opened this issue Aug 31, 2020 · 5 comments
Open

update column specs in spec.yaml #5

mllewis opened this issue Aug 31, 2020 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
admin Keeping things organised enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@mllewis
Copy link
Contributor

mllewis commented Aug 31, 2020

There are currently discrepancies between spec.yaml and the MA template codebook. I assume the MA template has been updated more recently? If true, the spec sheet will need to be updated before new data can be added to the database.

Two issues @anjiecao came across in the course of working on a MA for the challenge.

  1. response_mode in the template lists both "looking" and "eye-tracking" as options. I don't think we want looking as an option here?
  2. source_of_data is missing from spec.yaml. We probably want options like text/table, plot, author here.

I suspect there are other discrepancies, but these are two we came across.

@christinabergmann christinabergmann self-assigned this Sep 17, 2020
@erikriverson erikriverson transferred this issue from langcog/metalab2 Oct 29, 2020
@christinabergmann
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes, we need to discuss this in depth! looking is supposed to be hand-coded vs eye-tracking being automatic, because external coders kept stumbling over eye-tracking for both types of data.

But right now, this means that some (all?) datasets are coded inconsistently. I think for some we can programmatically fix it (e.g. for most older papers). The overarching goal is to increase usability and transparency, but it should of course not come at the cost of data integrity. So with these points in mind, what do you think we should do?

@lottiegasp lottiegasp self-assigned this Nov 4, 2020
@lottiegasp
Copy link
Collaborator

I was wondering whether the Code Book could live on the MetaLab website instead of in the Google spreadsheet, basically as the spec.yaml but with a more user-friendly interface i.e. in a pretty table. This would avoid discrepancies between the two. but I wonder whether you think many users would struggle to find this Code Book compared to if it is just in the Google spreadsheet? We also need a way for users to add their own rows to the CodeBook when they add non-obligatory columns which might be tricky. Can discuss when we meet tomorrow, @christinabergmann

@christinabergmann
Copy link
Collaborator

That would of course be ideal, they went out of synch and keeping track across multiple documents is always hard. Maybe @erikriverson can point us to a simple way of displaying spec.yaml in a user-friendly format.

lottiegasp added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 26, 2020
@erikriverson
Copy link
Collaborator

Some progress on a couple of ideas:

  1. Able to generate Google Sheets template directly via R from spec.yaml, including options on columns and colors. I have a demo of this working with the Data sheet

  2. The validation app has a tab called "Fields Information" that is a searchable table and could be shown in a more prominent location on the MetaLab website. The previous version of the site had a "Field Specification" tab on this page: https://langcog.github.io/metalab2/documentation.html

@lottiegasp
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks @erikriverson ! (removing my assignment to help me keep track of my tasks, but if I can help again at any stage let me know!)

@lottiegasp lottiegasp added enhancement New feature or request admin Keeping things organised labels Feb 16, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
admin Keeping things organised enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants