Juancarlos

Creating new FP form

Waiting for consensus on what to put in fields for author and curator for FP.

Raymond suggests : To have a first pass form for curators that shows author's 
submission for curator's approval (e.g. a tick) for that information to be sent 
(along with whatever information a curator puts in) for data extraction. If the 
first-pass curator dis-approves author's input (by not ticking), then the author's 
input will not be further processed or sent but it will be nevertheless stored as 
is in the database. For the next phase, results from automated first-pass via 
textpresso could be treated similarly as that of the author's. The ultimate goal 
is to maximize the number of fields that need no curator approval. Sources of 
first-pass curation should be clearly distinguished by a person ID (textpresso 
will be assigned one).

Juancarlos is okay with this, but while I'm leaning towards assigning the author 
response to a PersonID, if this is not going to be used for evidence anywhere, 
the corresponding email is possibly the more accurate evidence since the receiver 
may pass it on to someone who is not the WBPerson that email is assigned to.  In 
that case Textpresso wouldn't need a person ID.  I'm still leaning toward using 
IDs though, I'm just not sure it reflects the right things if we ever want that 
in WB or something like that.

Juancarlos also needs to know how curators want to enter data.  For any given 
Paper-Field, would curators want to be able to enter unlimited entries, and make 
then invalid to delete ?  Would you prefer the current system where there's only 
a single box where everyone mushes in all data ?  Would you care about the history 
of deleted things ?

Implement automating simple data type flagging

Finished

Resolve duplicates in FP Curation checkout pages Problem: There are many papers on the firstpass list that are already firstpassed. Most of these papers are duplicates and have two WBPaperID assignments. Is there a way to resolve this?.

Clear review papers from textpresso data types searches Problem: Reviews were making up a fair portion of false positives in data type automation trials. Assign Publication Type 'Review' to all papers that are annotated as 'review' in the Comments section of the FP curation form

Sort papers based on first pass checkout list based on whether or not they have been passed through Textpresso Curators can now focus on papers whose data fields have already be filled in by textpresso.

Unassigned tasks and comments that need more discussion

• We do have a record of data type curation for each paper, is there some way of combining the first pass curation with the curation status form?

-The curation status form gets flagged data from the first pass form (don't think I understand the question) -- Juancarlos

• How does the false positive work?

- the words ``false positive get appended (or prepended, I forget and can't find an example) into the text field -- Juancarlos

• Curator preference for FP remarks, can people deal with the not getting detailed notes about their data type and where it exists in the paper or should this be a mandatory part of first-pass?

• Discrepancy between FP papers and total papers curated. For some data types, curators get to the paper before the FP curator, it would be good to know that a curator already touched it. Is there a way to mark the paper in the FP list as curated for a specific data type but not others?

- I thought on the checkout section they showed as ``RNAi only or something like that. -- Juancarlos