Distributed Research Teams: Meeting Asynchronously in Virtual Space

Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, JCMC 4 (4), 1999
Distributed Research Teams: Meeting Asynchronously in Virtual Space
Lai Adams, Lori Toomey, Elizabeth Churchill
As computer networks improve, more social and work interactions are carried out “virtually” by geographically separated group members. In this paper we discuss the design of a tool, PAVE, to support remote work interactions among colleagues in different time zones.
PAVE extends a 2D graphical MOO and supports synchronous and asynchronous interactions.
PAVE logs and indexes activities in the space. This capture facility enables playback and augmentation of meeting interactions by non-collocated group members. Thus, members can participate asynchronously in meetings they could not attend in real time, not just review them.

Another publication from the same category: Machine Learning and Data Science

WWW '17 Perth Australia April 2017

Drawing Sound Conclusions from Noisy Judgments

David Goldberg, Andrew Trotman, Xiao Wang, Wei Min, Zongru Wan

The quality of a search engine is typically evaluated using hand-labeled data sets, where the labels indicate the relevance of documents to queries. Often the number of labels needed is too large to be created by the best annotators, and so less accurate labels (e.g. from crowdsourcing) must be used. This introduces errors in the labels, and thus errors in standard precision metrics (such as P@k and DCG); the lower the quality of the judge, the more errorful the labels, consequently the more inaccurate the metric. We introduce equations and algorithms that can adjust the metrics to the values they would have had if there were no annotation errors.

This is especially important when two search engines are compared by comparing their metrics. We give examples where one engine appeared to be statistically significantly better than the other, but the effect disappeared after the metrics were corrected for annotation error. In other words the evidence supporting a statistical difference was illusory, and caused by a failure to account for annotation error.