Difference between revisions of "WormBase-Caltech Weekly Calls"
From WormBaseWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
* Are the 'functional annotation' tags unique or otherwise mutually exclusive? Yes, historically | * Are the 'functional annotation' tags unique or otherwise mutually exclusive? Yes, historically | ||
* We will change the name of the tag to "non-nematode" and exclude the papers from flagging pipelines (SVM, Textpresso, etc.) | * We will change the name of the tag to "non-nematode" and exclude the papers from flagging pipelines (SVM, Textpresso, etc.) | ||
| − | * Will need to change in Postgres (Paper Display, Paper Editor) | + | * Will need to change in Postgres (Paper Display ("curation_flags", Paper Editor) |
Revision as of 17:27, 5 December 2013
Previous Years
2013 Meetings
December 5, 2013
WBPapers sans C. elegans data
- There are papers in the WormBase collection that are used as paper evidence for some concise descriptions
- They don't refer to C. elegans experiments, but were used to write descriptions with characterizations in other organisms
- These papers are lumped in with all the other papers, come up as false positives in flagging pipelines
- They have a "functional annotation" tag
- Many of these were coming up in the disease paper pipeline
- Michael and Kimberly worked to pull out all papers with this problem
- Some are methods papers, some possibly mistakes, etc.
- Main question: do we want to take 'functional annotation' papers out of Textpresso/Curation pipelines?
- Are the 'functional annotation' tags unique or otherwise mutually exclusive? Yes, historically
- We will change the name of the tag to "non-nematode" and exclude the papers from flagging pipelines (SVM, Textpresso, etc.)
- Will need to change in Postgres (Paper Display ("curation_flags", Paper Editor)
