Abstract: Granting agencies invest millions of dollars on the generation and analysis of data, making these products extremely valuable. However, without sufficient annotation of the methods used to collect and analyze the data, the ability to reproduce and reuse those products suffers. This lack of assurance of the quality and credibility of the data at the different stages in the research process essentially wastes much of the investment of time and funding and fails to drive research forward to the level of potential possible if everything was effectively annotated and disseminated to the wider research community. In order to address this issue for the Hawai’i Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) project, a water science gateway was developed at the University of Hawai‘i (UH), called the ‘Ike Wai Gateway. In Hawaiian, ‘Ike means knowledge and Wai means water. The gateway supports research in hydrology and water management by providing tools to address questions of water sustainability in Hawai‘i. The gateway provides a framework for data acquisition, analysis, model integration, and display of data products. The gateway is intended to complement and integrate with the capabilities of the Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science’s (CUAHSI) Hydroshare by providing sound data and metadata management capabilities for multi-domain field observations, analytical lab actions, and modeling outputs. Functionality provided by the gateway is supported by a subset of the CUAHSI’s Observations Data Model (ODM) delivered as centralized web based user interfaces and APIs supporting multi-domain data management, computation, analysis, and visualization tools to support reproducible science, modeling, data discovery, and decision support for the Hawai’i EPSCoR ‘Ike Wai research team and wider Hawai‘i hydrology community. By leveraging the Tapis platform, UH has constructed a gateway that ties data and advanced computing resources together to support diverse research domains including microbiology, geochemistry, geophysics, economics, and humanities, coupled with computational and modeling workflows delivered in a user friendly web interface with workflows for effectively annotating the project data and products. Disseminating results for the ‘Ike Wai project through the ‘Ike Wai data gateway and Hydroshare makes the research products accessible and reusable.

This dataset contains 35 of 39 taxonomies that were the result of a systematic review. The systematic review was conducted with the goal of identifying taxonomies suitable for semantically annotating research data. A special focus was set on research data from the hybrid societies domain.

The following taxonomies were identified as part of the systematic review:

Filename

Taxonomy Title

acm_ccs

ACM Computing Classification System [1]

amec

A Taxonomy of Evaluation Towards Standards [2]

bibo

A BIBO Ontology Extension for Evaluation of Scientific Research Results [3]

cdt

Cross-Device Taxonomy [4]

cso

Computer Science Ontology [5]

ddbm

What Makes a Data-driven Business Model? A Consolidated Taxonomy [6]

ddi_am

DDI Aggregation Method [7]

ddi_moc

DDI Mode of Collection [8]

n/a

DemoVoc [9]

discretization

Building a New Taxonomy for Data Discretization Techniques [10]

dp

Demopaedia [11]

dsg

Data Science Glossary [12]

ease

A Taxonomy of Evaluation Approaches in Software Engineering [13]

eco

Evidence & Conclusion Ontology [14]

edam

EDAM: The Bioscientific Data Analysis Ontology [15]

n/a

European Language Social Science Thesaurus [16]

et

Evaluation Thesaurus [17]

glos_hci

The Glossary of Human Computer Interaction [18]

n/a

Humanities and Social Science Electronic Thesaurus [19]

hcio

A Core Ontology on the Human-Computer Interaction Phenomenon [20]

hft

Human-Factors Taxonomy [21]

hri

A Taxonomy to Structure and Analyze Human–Robot Interaction [22]

iim

A Taxonomy of Interaction for Instructional Multimedia [23]

interrogation

A Taxonomy of Interrogation Methods [24]

iot

Design Vocabulary for Human–IoT Systems Communication [25]

kinect

Understanding Movement and Interaction: An Ontology for Kinect-Based 3D Depth Sensors [26]

maco

Thesaurus Mass Communication [27]

n/a

Thesaurus Cognitive Psychology of Human Memory [28]

mixed_initiative

Mixed-Initiative Human-Robot Interaction: Definition, Taxonomy, and Survey [29]

qos_qoe

A Taxonomy of Quality of Service and Quality of Experience of Multimodal Human-Machine Interaction [30]

ro

The Research Object Ontology [31]

senses_sensors

A Human-Centered Taxonomy of Interaction Modalities and Devices [32]

sipat

A Taxonomy of Spatial Interaction Patterns and Techniques [33]

social_errors

A Taxonomy of Social Errors in Human-Robot Interaction [34]

sosa

Semantic Sensor Network Ontology [35]

swo

The Software Ontology [36]

tadirah

Taxonomy of Digital Research Activities in the Humanities [37]

vrs

Virtual Reality and the CAVE: Taxonomy, Interaction Challenges and Research Directions [38]

xdi

Cross-Device Interaction [39]

We converted the taxonomies into SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organisation System) representation. The following 4 taxonomies were not converted as they were already available in SKOS and were for this reason excluded from this dataset:

1) DemoVoc, cf. http://thesaurus.web.ined.fr/navigateur/ available at https://thesaurus.web.ined.fr/exports/demovoc/demovoc.rdf

2) European Language Social Science Thesaurus, cf. https://thesauri.cessda.eu/elsst/en/ available at https://zenodo.org/record/5506929

3) Humanities and Social Science Electronic Thesaurus, cf. https://hasset.ukdataservice.ac.uk/hasset/en/ available at https://zenodo.org/record/7568355

4) Thesaurus Cognitive Psychology of Human Memory, cf. https://www.loterre.fr/presentation/ available at https://skosmos.loterre.fr/P66/en/

References

[1] “The 2012 ACM Computing Classification System,” ACM Digital Library, 2012. https://dl.acm.org/ccs (accessed May 08, 2023).

[2] AMEC, “A Taxonomy of Evaluation Towards Standards.” Aug. 31, 2016. Accessed: May 08, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://amecorg.com/amecframework/home/supporting-material/taxonomy/

[3] B. Dimić Surla, M. Segedinac, and D. Ivanović, “A BIBO ontology extension for evaluation of scientific research results,” in Proceedings of the Fifth Balkan Conference in Informatics, in BCI ’12. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Sep. 2012, pp. 275–278. doi: 10.1145/2371316.2371376.

[4] F. Brudy et al., “Cross-Device Taxonomy: Survey, Opportunities and Challenges of Interactions Spanning Across Multiple Devices,” in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, in CHI ’19. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Mai 2019, pp. 1–28. doi: 10.1145/3290605.3300792.

[5] A. A. Salatino, T. Thanapalasingam, A. Mannocci, F. Osborne, and E. Motta, “The Computer Science Ontology: A Large-Scale Taxonomy of Research Areas,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1137, D. Vrandečić, K. Bontcheva, M. C. Suárez-Figueroa, V. Presutti, I. Celino, M. Sabou, L.-A. Kaffee, and E. Simperl, Eds., Monterey, California, USA: Springer, Oct. 2018, pp. 187–205. Accessed: May 08, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://oro.open.ac.uk/55484/

[6] M. Dehnert, A. Gleiss, and F. Reiss, “What makes a data-driven business model? A consolidated taxonomy,” presented at the European Conference on Information Systems, 2021.

[7] DDI Alliance, “DDI Controlled Vocabulary for Aggregation Method,” 2014. https://ddialliance.org/Specification/DDI-CV/AggregationMethod_1.0.html (accessed May 08, 2023).

[8] DDI Alliance, “DDI Controlled Vocabulary for Mode Of Collection,” 2015. https://ddialliance.org/Specification/DDI-CV/ModeOfCollection_2.0.html (accessed May 08, 2023).

[9] INED - French Institute for Demographic Studies, “Thésaurus DemoVoc,” Feb. 26, 2020. https://thesaurus.web.ined.fr/navigateur/en/about (accessed May 08, 2023).

[10] A. A. Bakar, Z. A. Othman, and N. L. M. Shuib, “Building a new taxonomy for data discretization techniques,” in 2009 2nd Conference on Data Mining and Optimization, Oct. 2009, pp. 132–140. doi: 10.1109/DMO.2009.5341896.

[11] N. Brouard and C. Giudici, “Unified second edition of the Multilingual Demographic Dictionary (Demopaedia.org project),” presented at the 2017 International Population Conference, IUSSP, Oct. 2017. Accessed: May 08, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://iussp.confex.com/iussp/ipc2017/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/5713

[12] DuCharme, Bob, “Data Science Glossary.” https://www.datascienceglossary.org/ (accessed May 08, 2023).

[13] A. Chatzigeorgiou, T. Chaikalis, G. Paschalidou, N. Vesyropoulos, C. K. Georgiadis, and E. Stiakakis, “A Taxonomy of Evaluation Approaches in Software Engineering,” in Proceedings of the 7th Balkan Conference on Informatics Conference, in BCI ’15. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Sep. 2015, pp. 1–8. doi: 10.1145/2801081.2801084.

[14] M. C. Chibucos, D. A. Siegele, J. C. Hu, and M. Giglio, “The Evidence and Conclusion Ontology (ECO): Supporting GO Annotations,” in The Gene Ontology Handbook, C. Dessimoz and N. Škunca, Eds., in Methods in Molecular Biology. New York, NY: Springer, 2017, pp. 245–259. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-3743-1_18.

[15] M. Black et al., “EDAM: the bioscientific data analysis ontology,” F1000Research, vol. 11, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.7490/f1000research.1118900.1.

[16] Council of European Social Science Data Archives (CESSDA), “European Language Social Science Thesaurus ELSST,” 2021. https://thesauri.cessda.eu/en/ (accessed May 08, 2023).

[17] M. Scriven, Evaluation Thesaurus, 3rd Edition. Edgepress, 1981. Accessed: May 08, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/evaluation-thesaurus/book3562

[18] Papantoniou, Bill et al., The Glossary of Human Computer Interaction. Interaction Design Foundation. Accessed: May 08, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-glossary-of-human-computer-interaction

[19] “UK Data Service Vocabularies: HASSET Thesaurus.” https://hasset.ukdataservice.ac.uk/hasset/en/ (accessed May 08, 2023).

[20] S. D. Costa, M. P. Barcellos, R. de A. Falbo, T. Conte, and K. M. de Oliveira, “A core ontology on the Human–Computer Interaction phenomenon,” Data Knowl. Eng., vol. 138, p. 101977, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.datak.2021.101977.

[21] V. J. Gawron et al., “Human Factors Taxonomy,” Proc. Hum. Factors Soc. Annu. Meet., vol. 35, no. 18, pp. 1284–1287, Sep. 1991, doi: 10.1177/154193129103501807.

[22] L. Onnasch and E. Roesler, “A Taxonomy to Structure and Analyze Human–Robot Interaction,” Int. J. Soc. Robot., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 833–849, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s12369-020-00666-5.

[23] R. A. Schwier, “A Taxonomy of Interaction for Instructional Multimedia.” Sep. 28, 1992. Accessed: May 09, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED352044

[24] C. Kelly, J. Miller, A. Redlich, and S. Kleinman, “A Taxonomy of Interrogation Methods,”

-------------------------------------
Siehe unten für die deutsche Version.
-------------------------------------

Synchronic Usage Relatedness (SURel) - Test Set and Annotation Data

This data collection supplementing the paper referenced below contains:

- a semantic meaning shift test set with 22 German lexemes with different degrees of meaning shifts from general language to the domain of cooking. It comes as a tab-separated csv file where each line has the form

lemma POS translations mean relatedness score frequency GEN frequency SPEC

The 'mean relatedness score' denotes the annotation-based measure of semantic shift described in the paper. 'frequency GEN' and 'frequency SPEC' list the frequencies of the target words in the general language corpus (GEN) and the domain-specific cooking corpus (SPEC). 'translations' gives English translations for different senses, illustrating possible meaning shifts. Note that further senses might exist;

- the full annotation tables as annotators received it filled it. The tables come in the form of a tab-separated csv file where each line has the form

sentence 1 rating comment sentence 2;

- the annotation guidelines in English and German (only the German version was used);
- data visualization plots.

Find more information in

Anna Hätty, Dominik Schlechtweg, Sabine Schulte im Walde. 2019. SURel: A Gold Standard for Incorporating Meaning Shifts into Term Extraction. In Proceedings of the Eighth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM). Minneapolis, Minnesota USA 2019.

Dominik Schlechtweg, Sabine Schulte im Walde, Stefanie Eckmann. 2018. Diachronic Usage Relatedness (DURel): A Framework for the Annotation of Lexical Semantic Change. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL HLT). New Orleans, Louisiana USA 2018.

The resources are freely available for education, research and other non-commercial purposes. More information can be requested via email to the authors.

-------
Deutsch
-------

Synchroner Wortverwendungsbezug (SURel) - Test Set und Annotationsdaten

Diese Datensammlung ergänzt den unten zitierten Artikel und enthält folgende Dateien:

- ein Test Set für semantische Bedeutungsverschiebung mit 22 deutschen Lexemen, mit unteschiedlichen Graden an Bedeutungsverschiebungen von der Allgemeinsprache hin zur domänenspezifischen Sprache des Kochens. Hierbei handelt es sich um eine tab-separierte CSV-Datei, in der jede Zeile folgende Form hat:

Lexem Wortart Übersetzungen Mean Relatedness Score Freqeunz GEN Frequenz SPEC

Der 'Mean Realtedness Score' bezeichnet das annotationsbasierte Maß für Bedeutungsverschiebungen wie im Paper beschrieben. 'Frequenz GEN' und 'Frequenz SPEC' listen die Häufigkeiten der Zielwörter im allgemeinsprachlichen Korpus (GEN) und im domänenspezifischen Korpus (SPEC) auf. 'Übersetzungen' enthält englische Übersetzungen für mögliche Bedeutungen um die Bedeutungsverschiebung zu illustrieren. Beachten Sie dass auch andere Bedeutungen exitieren können;

- Die Annotationstabellen, wie sie die Annotatoren erhalten aus ausgefüllt haben. Die Ergebnistabellen sind tab-separierte CSV-Dateien, in der jede Zeile folgende Form hat:

Satz 1 Bewertung Kommentar Satz 2

- die Annotationsrichtlinien auf Deutsch und Englisch (nur die deutsche Version wurde genutzt);
- Visualisierungsplots der Daten.

Mehr Informationen finden Sie in

Anna Hätty, Dominik Schlechtweg, Sabine Schulte im Walde. 2019. SURel: A Gold Standard for Incorporating Meaning Shifts into Term Extraction. In Proceedings of the Eighth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM). Minneapolis, Minnesota USA 2019.

Dominik Schlechtweg, Sabine Schulte im Walde, Stefanie Eckmann. 2018. Diachronic Usage Relatedness (DURel): A Framework for the Annotation of Lexical Semantic Change. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL HLT). New Orleans, Louisiana USA 2018.

Die Ressourcen sind frei verfügbar für Lehre, Forschung sowie andere nicht-kommerzielle Zwecke. Für weitere Informationen schreiben Sie bitte eine E-Mail an die Autoren.

This data collection contains diachronic Word Usage Graphs (WUGs) for Spanish. Find a description of the data format, code to process the data and further datasets on the WUGsite.

Please find more information on the provided data in the papers referenced below.

The annotation was funded by

• ANID FONDECYT grant 11200290, U-Inicia VID Project UI-004/20,
• ANID - Millennium Science Initiative Program - Code ICN17 002 and
• SemRel Group (DFG Grants SCHU 2580/1 and SCHU 2580/2).

Version: 4.0.2, 7.1.2025. Full data. Quoting issues in uses resolved. Target word and target sentence indices corrected. One corrected context for word 'metro'. Judgments anonymized. Annotator 'gecsa' removed. Issues with special characters in filenames resolved. Additional removal of wrongly copied graphs.

Reference

Frank D. Zamora-Reina, Felipe Bravo-Marquez, Dominik Schlechtweg. 2022. LSCDiscovery: A shared task on semantic change discovery and detection in Spanish. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Computational Approaches to Historical Language Change. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Dominik Schlechtweg, Tejaswi Choppa, Wei Zhao, Michael Roth. 2025. The CoMeDi Shared Task: Median Judgment Classification & Mean Disagreement Ranking with Ordinal Word-in-Context Judgments. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Context and Meaning--Navigating Disagreements in NLP Annotations.

This is Part 2/2 of the ActiveHuman dataset! Part 1 can be found here. Dataset Description ActiveHuman was generated using Unity's Perception package. It consists of 175428 RGB images and their semantic segmentation counterparts taken at different environments, lighting conditions, camera distances and angles. In total, the dataset contains images for 8 environments, 33 humans, 4 lighting conditions, 7 camera distances (1m-4m) and 36 camera angles (0-360 at 10-degree intervals). The dataset does not include images at every single combination of available camera distances and angles, since for some values the camera would collide with another object or go outside the confines of an environment. As a result, some combinations of camera distances and angles do not exist in the dataset. Alongside each image, 2D Bounding Box, 3D Bounding Box and Keypoint ground truth annotations are also generated via the use of Labelers and are stored as a JSON-based dataset. These Labelers are scripts that are responsible for capturing ground truth annotations for each captured image or frame. Keypoint annotations follow the COCO format defined by the COCO keypoint annotation template offered in the perception package.

Folder configuration The dataset consists of 3 folders:

JSON Data: Contains all the generated JSON files. RGB Images: Contains the generated RGB images. Semantic Segmentation Images: Contains the generated semantic segmentation images.

Essential Terminology

Annotation: Recorded data describing a single capture. Capture: One completed rendering process of a Unity sensor which stored the rendered result to data files (e.g. PNG, JPG, etc.). Ego: Object or person on which a collection of sensors is attached to (e.g., if a drone has a camera attached to it, the drone would be the ego and the camera would be the sensor). Ego coordinate system: Coordinates with respect to the ego. Global coordinate system: Coordinates with respect to the global origin in Unity. Sensor: Device that captures the dataset (in this instance the sensor is a camera). Sensor coordinate system: Coordinates with respect to the sensor. Sequence: Time-ordered series of captures. This is very useful for video capture where the time-order relationship of two captures is vital. UIID: Universal Unique Identifier. It is a unique hexadecimal identifier that can represent an individual instance of a capture, ego, sensor, annotation, labeled object or keypoint, or keypoint template.

Dataset Data The dataset includes 4 types of JSON annotation files files:

annotation_definitions.json: Contains annotation definitions for all of the active Labelers of the simulation stored in an array. Each entry consists of a collection of key-value pairs which describe a particular type of annotation and contain information about that specific annotation describing how its data should be mapped back to labels or objects in the scene. Each entry contains the following key-value pairs:

id: Integer identifier of the annotation's definition. name: Annotation name (e.g., keypoints, bounding box, bounding box 3D, semantic segmentation). description: Description of the annotation's specifications. format: Format of the file containing the annotation specifications (e.g., json, PNG). spec: Format-specific specifications for the annotation values generated by each Labeler.

Most Labelers generate different annotation specifications in the spec key-value pair:

BoundingBox2DLabeler/BoundingBox3DLabeler:

label_id: Integer identifier of a label. label_name: String identifier of a label. KeypointLabeler:

template_id: Keypoint template UUID. template_name: Name of the keypoint template. key_points: Array containing all the joints defined by the keypoint template. This array includes the key-value pairs:

label: Joint label. index: Joint index. color: RGBA values of the keypoint. color_code: Hex color code of the keypoint skeleton: Array containing all the skeleton connections defined by the keypoint template. Each skeleton connection defines a connection between two different joints. This array includes the key-value pairs:

label1: Label of the first joint. label2: Label of the second joint. joint1: Index of the first joint. joint2: Index of the second joint. color: RGBA values of the connection. color_code: Hex color code of the connection. SemanticSegmentationLabeler:

label_name: String identifier of a label. pixel_value: RGBA values of the label. color_code: Hex color code of the label.

captures_xyz.json: Each of these files contains an array of ground truth annotations generated by each active Labeler for each capture separately, as well as extra metadata that describe the state of each active sensor that is present in the scene. Each array entry in the contains the following key-value pairs:

id: UUID of the capture. sequence_id: UUID of the sequence. step: Index of the capture within a sequence. timestamp: Timestamp (in ms) since the beginning of a sequence. sensor: Properties of the sensor. This entry contains a collection with the following key-value pairs:

sensor_id: Sensor UUID. ego_id: Ego UUID. modality: Modality of the sensor (e.g., camera, radar). translation: 3D vector that describes the sensor's position (in meters) with respect to the global coordinate system. rotation: Quaternion variable that describes the sensor's orientation with respect to the ego coordinate system. camera_intrinsic: matrix containing (if it exists) the camera's intrinsic calibration. projection: Projection type used by the camera (e.g., orthographic, perspective). ego: Attributes of the ego. This entry contains a collection with the following key-value pairs:

ego_id: Ego UUID. translation: 3D vector that describes the ego's position (in meters) with respect to the global coordinate system. rotation: Quaternion variable containing the ego's orientation. velocity: 3D vector containing the ego's velocity (in meters per second). acceleration: 3D vector containing the ego's acceleration (in ). format: Format of the file captured by the sensor (e.g., PNG, JPG). annotations: Key-value pair collections, one for each active Labeler. These key-value pairs are as follows:

id: Annotation UUID . annotation_definition: Integer identifier of the annotation's definition. filename: Name of the file generated by the Labeler. This entry is only present for Labelers that generate an image. values: List of key-value pairs containing annotation data for the current Labeler.

Each Labeler generates different annotation specifications in the values key-value pair:

BoundingBox2DLabeler:

label_id: Integer identifier of a label. label_name: String identifier of a label. instance_id: UUID of one instance of an object. Each object with the same label that is visible on the same capture has different instance_id values. x: Position of the 2D bounding box on the X axis. y: Position of the 2D bounding box position on the Y axis. width: Width of the 2D bounding box. height: Height of the 2D bounding box. BoundingBox3DLabeler:

label_id: Integer identifier of a label. label_name: String identifier of a label. instance_id: UUID of one instance of an object. Each object with the same label that is visible on the same capture has different instance_id values. translation: 3D vector containing the location of the center of the 3D bounding box with respect to the sensor coordinate system (in meters). size: 3D vector containing the size of the 3D bounding box (in meters) rotation: Quaternion variable containing the orientation of the 3D bounding box. velocity: 3D vector containing the velocity of the 3D bounding box (in meters per second). acceleration: 3D vector containing the acceleration of the 3D bounding box acceleration (in ). KeypointLabeler:

label_id: Integer identifier of a label. instance_id: UUID of one instance of a joint. Keypoints with the same joint label that are visible on the same capture have different instance_id values. template_id: UUID of the keypoint template. pose: Pose label for that particular capture. keypoints: Array containing the properties of each keypoint. Each keypoint that exists in the keypoint template file is one element of the array. Each entry's contents have as follows:

index: Index of the keypoint in the keypoint template file. x: Pixel coordinates of the keypoint on the X axis. y: Pixel coordinates of the keypoint on the Y axis. state: State of the keypoint.

The SemanticSegmentationLabeler does not contain a values list.

egos.json: Contains collections of key-value pairs for each ego. These include:

id: UUID of the ego. description: Description of the ego. sensors.json: Contains collections of key-value pairs for all sensors of the simulation. These include:

id: UUID of the sensor. ego_id: UUID of the ego on which the sensor is attached. modality: Modality of the sensor (e.g., camera, radar, sonar). description: Description of the sensor (e.g., camera, radar).

Image names The RGB and semantic segmentation images share the same image naming convention. However, the semantic segmentation images also contain the string Semantic_ at the beginning of their filenames. Each RGB image is named "e_h_l_d_r.jpg", where:

e denotes the id of the environment. h denotes the id of the person. l denotes the id of the lighting condition. d denotes the camera distance at which the image was captured. r denotes the camera angle at which the image was captured.

The data published here are a supplementary for a paper to be published in Metaphor and Social Words (under revision).

Two debates organised and published by TVP and TVN were transcribed and annotated with Metaphor Identification Method. We have used eMargin software (a collaborative textual annotation tool, (Kehoe and Gee 2013) and a slightly modified version of MIP (Pragglejaz 2007). Each lexical unit in the transcript was labelled as a metaphor related word (MRW) if its “contextual meaning was related to the more basic meaning by some form of similarity” (Steen 2007). The meanings were established with the Wielki Słownik Języka Polskiego (Great Dictionary of Polish, ed. (Żmigrodzki 2019). In addition to MRW, lexemes which create a metaphorical expression together with MRW were tagged as metaphor expression word (MEW). At least two words are needed to identify the actual metaphorical expression, since MRW cannot appear without MEW. Grammatical construction of the metaphor (Sullivan 2009) is asymmetrical: one word is conceptually autonomous and the other is conceptually dependent on the first. Within construction grammar terms (Langacker 2008), metaphor related word is elaborated with/by metaphorical expression word, because the basic meaning of MRW is elaborated and extended to more figurative meaning only if it is used jointly with MEW. Moreover, the meaning of the MEW is rather basic, concrete, as it remains unchanged in connection with the MRW. This can be clearly seen in the expression often used in our data: “Służba zdrowia jest w zapaści” (“Health service suffers from a collapse.”) where the word “zapaść” (“collapse”) is an example of MRW and words “służba zdrowia” (“health service”) are labeled as MEW. The English translation of this expression needs a different verb, instead of “jest w zapaści” (“is in collapse”) the English unmarked collocation is “suffers from a collapse”, therefore words “suffers from a collapse” are labeled as MRW. The “collapse” could be caused by heart failure, such as cardiac arrest or any other life-threatening medical condition and “health service” is portrayed as if it could literally suffer from such a condition – a collapse.

The data are in csv tables exported from xml files downloaded from eMargin site. Prior to annotation transcripts were divided to 40 parts, each for one annotator. MRW words are marked as MLN, MEW are marked as MLP and functional words within metaphorical expression are marked MLI, other words are marked just noana, which means no annotation needed.

Annotating terms referring to aspects of disability in historical texts is crucial for understanding how societies in different periods conceptualized and treated disability. Such annotations help modern readers grasp the evolving language, cultural attitudes, and social structures surrounding disability, shedding light on both marginalization and inclusion throughout history. This is important as evolving societal attitudes can influence the perpetuation of harmful language that reinforces stereotypes and discrimination. However, this task presents significant challenges. Terminology often reflects outdated, offensive, or ambiguous concepts that require sensitive interpretation. Meaning of terms may have shifted over time, making it difficult to align historical terms with contemporary understandings of disability. Additionally, contextual nuances and the lack of standardized language in historical records demand careful scholarly judgment to avoid anachronism or misrepresentation.In this paper we introduce an annotation protocol for analysing and describing semantic shifts in the discourse on disabilities in historical texts, reporting on how our protocol's design evolved to address these specific challenges and on issues around annotators' agreement. For designing the annotation protocol for measuring the semantic change in the disability domain, we selected texts for annotation from Gale’s History of Disabilities: Disabilities in Society, Seventeenth to Twentieth Century(https://www.gale.com/intl/c/history-of-disabilities-disabilities-in-society-seventeenth-to-twentieth-century).Nitisha Jain, Chiara Di Bonaventura, Albert Meroño-Peñuela, Barbara McGillivray. 2025. An Annotation Protocol for Diachronic Evaluation of Semantic Drift in Disability Sources. In Proceedings of the 19th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW 2025). Association for Computational Linguistics.

Musical prosody is characterized by the acoustic variations that make music expressive. However, few systematic and scalable studies exist on the function it serves or on effective tools to carry out such studies. To address this gap, we introduce a novel approach to capturing information about prosodic functions through a citizen science paradigm. In typical bottom-up approaches to studying musical prosody, acoustic properties in performed music and basic musical structures such as accents and phrases are mapped to prosodic functions, namely segmentation and prominence. In contrast, our top-down, human-centered method puts listener annotations of musical prosodic functions first, to analyze the connection between these functions, the underlying musical structures, and acoustic properties. The method is applied primarily to the exploring of segmentation and prominence in performed solo piano music. These prosodic functions are marked by means of four annotation types—boundaries, regions, note groups, and comments—in the CosmoNote web-based citizen science platform, which presents the music signal or MIDI data and related acoustic features in information layers that can be toggled on and off. Various annotation strategies are discussed and appraised: intuitive vs. analytical; real-time vs. retrospective; and, audio-based vs. visual. The end-to-end process of the data collection is described, from the providing of prosodic examples to the structuring and formatting of the annotation data for analysis, to techniques for preventing precision errors. The aim is to obtain reliable and coherent annotations that can be applied to theoretical and data-driven models of musical prosody. The outcomes include a growing library of prosodic examples with the goal of achieving an annotation convention for studying musical prosody in performed music.

Annotated corpora for MESINESP2 shared-task (Spanish BioASQ track, see https://temu.bsc.es/mesinesp2). BioASQ 2021 will be held at CLEF 2021 (scheduled in Bucharest, Romania in September) http://clef2021.clef-initiative.eu/

Introduction: These corpora contain the data for each of the subtracks of MESINESP2 shared-task:

[Subtrack 1] MESINESP - Medical indexing:

Training set: It contains all spanish records from LILACS and IBECS databases at the Virtual Health Library (VHL) with non-empty abstract written in Spanish. We have filtered out empty abstracts and non-Spanish abstracts. We have built the training dataset with the data crawled on 01/29/2021. This means that the data is a snapshot of that moment and that may change over time since LILACS and IBECS usually add or modify indexes after the first inclusion in the database. We distribute two different datasets:

Articles training set: This corpus contains the set of 237574 Spanish scientific papers in VHL that have at least one DeCS code assigned to them.

Full training set: This corpus contains the whole set of 249474 Spanish documents from VHL that have at leas one DeCS code assigned to them.

Development set: We provide a development set manually indexed by expert annotators. This dataset includes 1065 articles annotated with DeCS by three expert indexers in this controlled vocabulary. The articles were initially indexed by 7 annotators, after analyzing the Inter-Annotator Agreement among their annotations we decided to select the 3 best ones, considering their annotations the valid ones to build the test set. From those 1065 records:

213 articles were annotated by more than one annotator. We have selected de union between annotations.

852 articles were annotated by only one of the three selected annotators with better performance.

Test set: To be published

[Subtrack 2] MESINESP - Clinical trials:

Training set: The training dataset contains records from Registro Español de Estudios Clínicos (REEC). REEC doesn't provide documents with the structure title/abstract needed in BioASQ, for that reason we have built artificial abstracts based on the content available in the data crawled using the REEC API. Clinical trials are not indexed with DeCS terminology, we have used as training data a set of 3560 clinical trials that were automatically annotated in the first edition of MESINESP and that were published as a Silver Standard outcome. Because the performance of the models used by the participants was variable, we have only selected predictions from runs with a MiF higher than 0.41, which corresponds with the submission of the best team.

Development set: We provide a development set manually indexed by expert annotators. This dataset includes 147 clinical trials annotated with DeCS by seven expert indexers in this controlled vocabulary.

Test set: To be published

[Subtrack 3] MESINESP - Patents: To be published

Files structure:

Subtrack1-Scientific_Literature.zip contains the corpora generated for subtrack 1. Content:

Subtrack1:

Train

training_set_track1_all.json: Full training set for subtrack 1.

training_set_track1_only_articles.json: Articles training set for subtrack 1.

Development

development_set_subtrack1.json: Manually annotated development set for subtrack 1.

Subtrack2-Clinical_Trials.zip contains the corpora generated for subtrack 2. Content:

Subtrack2:

Train

training_set_subtrack2.json: Training set for subtrack 2.

Development

development_set_subtrack2.json: Manually annotated development set for subtrack 2.

DeCS2020.tsv contains a DeCS table with the following structure:

DeCS code

Preferred descriptor (the preferred label in the Latin Spanish DeCS 2020 set)

List of synonyms (the descriptors and synonyms from Latin Spanish DeCS 2020 set, separated by pipes.

DeCS2020.obo contains the *.obo file with the hierarchical relationships between DeCS descriptors.

*Note: The obo and tsv files with DeCS2020 descriptors contain some additional COVID19 descriptors that will be included in future versions of DeCS. These items were provided by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), which has kindly shared this content to improve the results of the task by taking these descriptors into account.

For further information, please visit https://temu.bsc.es/mesinesp2/ or email us at encargo-pln-life@bsc.es

A collection of 1200 texts (292 173 tokens) about clinical trials studies and clinical trials announcements in Spanish: - 500 abstracts from journals published under a Creative Commons license, e.g. available in PubMed or the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO). - 700 clinical trials announcements published in the European Clinical Trials Register and Repositorio Español de Estudios Clínicos. Texts were annotated with entities from the Unified Medical Language System semantic groups: anatomy (ANAT), pharmacological and chemical substances (CHEM), pathologies (DISO), and lab tests, diagnostic or therapeutic procedures (PROC). 46 699 entities were annotated (13.98% are nested entities). 10% of the corpus was doubly annotated, and inter-annotator agreement (IAA) achieved a mean F-measure of 85.65% (±4.79, strict match) and a mean F-measure of 93.94% (±3.31, relaxed match). The corpus is freely distributed for research and educational purposes under a Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution (CC-BY-NC-A) License.

In this study, we explore to what extent language users agree about what kind of stances are expressed in natural language use or whether their interpretations diverge. In order to perform this task, a comprehensive cognitive-functional framework of ten stance categories was developed based on previous work on speaker stance in the literature. A corpus of opinionated texts, where speakers take stance and position themselves, was compiled, the Brexit Blog Corpus (BBC). An analytical interface for the annotations was set up and the data were annotated independently by two annotators. The annotation procedure, the annotation agreement and the co-occurrence of more than one stance category in the utterances are described and discussed. The careful, analytical annotation process has by and large returned satisfactory inter- and intra-annotation agreement scores, resulting in a gold standard corpus, the final version of the BBC.

Purpose:

The aim of this study is to explore the possibility of identifying speaker stance in discourse, provide an analytical resource for it and an evaluation of the level of agreement across speakers in the area of stance-taking in discourse.

The BBC is a collection of texts from blog sources. The corpus texts are thematically related to the 2016 UK referendum concerning whether the UK should remain members of the European Union or not. The texts were extracted from the Internet from June to August 2015. With the Gavagai API (https://developer.gavagai.se), the texts were detected using seed words, such as Brexit, EU referendum, pro-Europe, europhiles, eurosceptics, United States of Europe, David Cameron, or Downing Street. The retrieved URLs were filtered so that only entries described as blogs in English were selected. Each downloaded document was split into sentential utterances, from which 2,200 utterances were randomly selected as the analysis data set. The final size of the corpus is 1,682 utterances, 35,492 words (169,762 characters without spaces). Each utterance contains from 3 to 40 words with a mean length of 21 words.

For the data annotation process the Active Learning and Visual Analytics (ALVA) system (https://doi.org/10.1145/3132169 and https://doi.org/10.2312/eurp.20161139) was used. Two annotators, one who is a professional translator with a Licentiate degree in English Linguistics and the other one with a PhD in Computational Linguistics, carried out the annotations independently of one another.

The data set can be downloaded in two different formats: a standard Microsoft Excel format and a raw data format (ZIP archive) which can be useful for analytical and machine learning purposes, for example, with the Python library scikit-learn. The Excel file includes one additional variable (utterance word length). The ZIP archive contains a set of directories (e.g., "contrariety" and "prediction") corresponding to the stance categories. Inside of each such directory, there are two nested directories corresponding to annotations which assign or not assign the respective category to utterances (e.g., inside the top-level category "prediction" there are two directories, "prediction" with utterances which were labeled with this category, and "no" with the rest of the utterances). Inside of the nested directories, there are textual files containing individual utterances.

When using data from this study, the primary researcher wishes citation also to be made to the publication: Vasiliki Simaki, Carita Paradis, Maria Skeppstedt, Magnus Sahlgren, Kostiantyn Kucher, and Andreas Kerren. Annotating speaker stance in discourse: the Brexit Blog Corpus. In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2017. De Gruyter, published electronically before print. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0060

This dataset consists of four years of technical language annotations from two paper machines in northern Sweden, structured as a Pandas dataframe. The same data is also available as a semicolon-separated .csv file. The data consists of two columns, where the first column corresponds to annotation note contents, and the second column corresponds to annotation titles. The annotations are in Swedish, and processed so that all mentions of personal information are replaced with the string ‘egennamn’, meaning “personal name” in Swedish. Each row corresponds to one annotation with the corresponding title. Data can be accessed in Python with: import pandas as pd annotations_df = pd.read_pickle("Technical_Language_Annotations.pkl") annotation_contents = annotations_df['noteComment'] annotation_titles = annotations_df['title']

Context

This notebook serves to showcase my problem solving ability, knowledge of the data analysis process, proficiency with Excel and its various tools and functions, as well as my strategic mindset and statistical prowess. This project consist of an auditing prompt provided by Hive Data, a raw Excel data set, a cleaned and audited version of the raw Excel data set, and my description of my thought process and knowledge used during completion of the project. The prompt can be found below:

Hive Data Audit Prompt

The raw data that accompanies the prompt can be found below:

Hive Annotation Job Results - Raw Data

^ These are the tools I was given to complete my task. The rest of the work is entirely my own.

To summarize broadly, my task was to audit the dataset and summarize my process and results. Specifically, I was to create a method for identifying which "jobs" - explained in the prompt above - needed to be rerun based on a set of "background facts," or criteria. The description of my extensive thought process and results can be found below in the Content section.

Content

Brendan Kelley April 23, 2021

Hive Data Audit Prompt Results

This paper explains the auditing process of the “Hive Annotation Job Results” data. It includes the preparation, analysis, visualization, and summary of the data. It is accompanied by the results of the audit in the excel file “Hive Annotation Job Results – Audited”.

Observation

The “Hive Annotation Job Results” data comes in the form of a single excel sheet. It contains 7 columns and 5,001 rows, including column headers. The data includes “file”, “object id”, and the pseudonym for five questions that each client was instructed to answer about their respective table: “tabular”, “semantic”, “definition list”, “header row”, and “header column”. The “file” column includes non-unique (that is, there are multiple instances of the same value in the column) numbers separated by a dash. The “object id” column includes non-unique numbers ranging from 5 to 487539. The columns containing the answers to the five questions include Boolean values - TRUE or FALSE – which depend upon the yes/no worker judgement.

Use of the COUNTIF() function reveals that there are no values other than TRUE or FALSE in any of the five question columns. The VLOOKUP() function reveals that the data does not include any missing values in any of the cells.

Assumptions

Based on the clean state of the data and the guidelines of the Hive Data Audit Prompt, the assumption is that duplicate values in the “file” column are acceptable and should not be removed. Similarly, duplicated values in the “object id” column are acceptable and should not be removed. The data is therefore clean and is ready for analysis/auditing.

Preparation

The purpose of the audit is to analyze the accuracy of the yes/no worker judgement of each question according to the guidelines of the background facts. The background facts are as follows:

• A table that is a definition list should automatically be tabular and also semantic • Semantic tables should automatically be tabular • If a table is NOT tabular, then it is definitely not semantic nor a definition list • A tabular table that has a header row OR header column should definitely be semantic

These background facts serve as instructions for how the answers to the five questions should interact with one another. These facts can be re-written to establish criteria for each question:

For tabular column: - If the table is a definition list, it is also tabular - If the table is semantic, it is also tabular

For semantic column: - If the table is a definition list, it is also semantic - If the table is not tabular, it is not semantic - If the table is tabular and has either a header row or a header column...

Brief ExplanationThis dataset is created to develop and evaluate a cataloging system which assigns appropriate metadata to an image record for database management in digital libraries. That is assumed for evaluating a task, in which given an image and assigned tags, an appropriate Wikipedia page is selected for each of the given tags.A main characteristic of the dataset is including ambiguous tags. Thus, visual contents of images are not unique to their tags. For example, it includes a tag 'mouse' which has double meaning of not a mammal but a computer controller device. The annotations are corresponding Wikipedia articles for tags as correct entities by human judgement.The dataset offers both data and programs that reproduce experiments of the above-mentioned task. Its data consist of sources of images and annotations. The image sources are URLs of 420 images uploaded to Flickr. The annotations are a total 2,464 relevant Wikipedia pages manually judged for tags of the images. The dataset also provides programs in Jupiter notebook (scripts.ipynb) to conduct a series of experiments running some baseline methods for the designated task and evaluating the results. ## Structure of the Dataset1. data directory 1.1. image_URL.txt This file lists URLs of image files. 1.2. rels.txt This file lists collect Wikipedia pages for each topic in topics.txt 1.3. topics.txt This file lists a target pair, which is called a topic in this dataset, of an image and a tag to be disambiguated. 1.4. enwiki_20171001.xml This file is extracted texts from the title and body parts of English Wikipedia articles as of 1st October 2017. This is a modified data of Wikipedia dump data (https://archive.org/download/enwiki-20171001).2. img directory This directory is a placeholder directory to fetch image files for downloading.3. results directory This directory is a placeholder directory to store results files for evaluation. It maintains three results of baseline methods in sub-directories. They contain json files each of which is a result of one topic, and are ready to be evaluated using an evaluation scripts in scripts.ipynb for reference of both usage and performance. 4. scripts.ipynb The scripts for running baseline methods and evaluation are ready in this Jupyter notebook file.

Data for "Koelmel JP, Stelben P, McDonough CA, Dukes DA, Aristizabal-Henao JJ, Nason SL, Li Y, Sternberg S, Lin E, Beckmann M, Williams AJ, Draper J, Finch JP, Munk JK, Deigl C, Rennie EE, Bowden JA, Godri Pollitt KJ. FluoroMatch 2.0-making automated and comprehensive non-targeted PFAS annotation a reality. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2022 Jan;414(3):1201-1215. doi: 10.1007/s00216-021-03392-7. Epub 2021 May 20. PMID: 34014358.". Portions of this dataset are inaccessible because: The link provided by UCSD doesn't seem to be working. They can be accessed through the following means: Contact Jeremy Koelmel at Yale University, jeremykoelmel@innovativeomics.com. Format: The final annotated excel sheets with feature intensities, annotations, homologous series groupings, etc., are available as a supplemental excel file with the online version of this manuscript. The raw Agilent “.d” files can be downloaded at: ftp://massive.ucsd.edu/MSV000086811/updates/2021-02-05_jeremykoelmel_e5b21166/raw/McDonough_AFFF_3M_ddMS2_Neg.zip (Note use Google Chrome or Firefox, Microsoft Edge and certain other browsers are unable to download from an ftp link). This dataset is associated with the following publication: Koelmel, J.P., P. Stelben, C.A. McDonough, D.A. Dukes, J.J. Aristizabal-Henao, S.L. Nason, Y. Li, S. Sternberg, E. Lin, M. Beckmann, A. Williams, J. Draper, J. Finch, J.K. Munk, C. Deigl, E. Rennie, J.A. Bowden, and K.J. Godri Pollitt. FluoroMatch 2.0—making automated and comprehensive non-targeted PFAS annotation a reality. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. Springer, New York, NY, USA, 414(3): 1201-1215, (2022).

Proteomics data-dependent acquisition data sets collected with high-resolution mass-spectrometry (MS) can achieve very high-quality results, but nearly every analysis yields results that are thresholded at some accepted false discovery rate, meaning that a substantial number of results are incorrect. For study conclusions that rely on a small number of peptide-spectrum matches being correct, it is thus important to examine at least some crucial spectra to ensure that they are not one of the incorrect identifications. We present Quetzal, a peptide fragment ion spectrum annotation tool to assist researchers in annotating and examining such spectra to ensure that they correctly support study conclusions. We describe how Quetzal annotates spectra using the new Human Proteome Organization (HUPO) Proteomics Standards Initiative (PSI) mzPAF standard for fragment ion peak annotation, including the Python-based code, a web-service end point that provides annotation services, and a web-based application for annotating spectra and producing publication-quality figures. We illustrate its functionality with several annotated spectra of varying complexity. Quetzal provides easily accessible functionality that can assist in the effort to ensure and demonstrate that crucial spectra support study conclusions. Quetzal is publicly available at https://proteomecentral.proteomexchange.org/quetzal/.

For this notebook, we're going to use the GMB (Groningen Meaning Bank) corpus for named entity recognition. GMB is a fairly large corpus with a lot of annotations. The data is labeled using the IOB format (short for inside, outside, beginning), which means each annotation also needs a prefix of I, O, or B.

The following classes appear in the dataset:

LOC - Geographical Entity ORG - Organization PER - Person GPE - Geopolitical Entity TIME - Time indicator ART - Artifact EVE - Event NAT - Natural Phenomenon Note: GMB is not completely human annotated, and it’s not considered 100% correct. For this exercise, classes ART, EVE, and NAT were combined into a MISC class due to small number of examples for these classes.

Dataset Description

• Homepage: https://projecteaina.cat/tech/]- Point of Contact: langech@bsc.es

Dataset Summary

These are the annotations made by a team of experts on the speakers with more than 1200 seconds recorded in the Catalan set of the Common Voice dataset (v13).

The annotators were initially tasked with evaluating all recordings associated with the same individual. Following that, they were instructed to annotate the speaker's accent, gender, and the overall quality of the recordings.

The accents and genders taken into account are the ones used until version 8 of the Common Voice corpus.

See annotations for more details.

Supported Tasks and Leaderboards

Gender classification, Accent classification.

Languages

The dataset is in Catalan (ca).

Dataset Structure

Instances

Two xlsx documents are published, one for each round of annotations.

The following information is available in each of the documents:

{ 'speaker ID': '1b7fc0c4e437188bdf1b03ed21d45b780b525fd0dc3900b9759d0755e34bc25e31d64e69c5bd547ed0eda67d104fc0d658b8ec78277810830167c53ef8ced24b', 'idx': '31', 'same speaker': {'AN1': 'SI', 'AN2': 'SI', 'AN3': 'SI', 'agreed': 'SI', 'percentage': '100'}, 'gender': {'AN1': 'H', 'AN2': 'H', 'AN3': 'H', 'agreed': 'H', 'percentage': '100'}, 'accent': {'AN1': 'Central', 'AN2': 'Central', 'AN3': 'Central', 'agreed': 'Central', 'percentage': '100'}, 'audio quality': {'AN1': '4.0', 'AN2': '3.0', 'AN3': '3.0', 'agreed': '3.0', 'percentage': '66', 'mean quality': '3.33', 'stdev quality': '0.58'}, 'comments': {'AN1': '', 'AN2': 'pujades i baixades de volum', 'AN3': 'Deu ser d'alguna zona de transició amb el central, perquè no fa una reducció total vocàlica, però hi té molta tendència'}, }

We also publish the document Guia anotació parlants.pdf, with the guidelines the annotators recieved.

Data Fields

speaker ID (string): An id for which client (voice) made the recording in the Common Voice corpus

idx (int): Id in this corpus

AN1 (string): Annotations from Annotator 1

AN2 (string): Annotations from Annotator 2

AN3 (string): Annotations from Annotator 3

agreed (string): Annotation from the majority of the annotators

percentage (int): Percentage of annotators that agree with the agreed annotation

mean quality (float): Mean of the quality annotation

stdev quality (float): Standard deviation of the mean quality

Data Splits

The corpus remains undivided into splits, as its purpose does not involve training models.

Dataset Creation

Curation Rationale

During 2022, a campaign was launched to promote the Common Voice corpus within the Catalan-speaking community, achieving remarkable success. However, not all participants provided their demographic details such as age, gender, and accent. Additionally, some individuals faced difficulty in self-defining their accent using the standard classifications established by specialists.

In order to obtain a balanced corpus with reliable information, we have seen the the necessity of enlisting a group of experts from the University of Barcelona to provide accurate annotations.

We release the complete annotations because transparency is fundamental to our project. Furthermore, we believe they hold philological value for studying dialectal and gender variants.

Source Data

The original data comes from the Catalan sentences of the Common Voice corpus.

Initial Data Collection and Normalization

We have selected speakers who have recorded more than 1200 seconds of speech in the Catalan set of the version 13 of the Common Voice corpus.

Who are the source language producers?

The original data comes from the Catalan sentences of the Common Voice corpus.

Annotations

Annotation process

Starting with version 13 of the Common Voice corpus we identified the speakers (273) who have recorded more than 1200 seconds of speech.

A team of three annotators was tasked with annotating:

if all the recordings correspond to the same person

the gender of the speaker

the accent of the speaker

the quality of the recording

They conducted an initial round of annotation, discussed their varying opinions, and subsequently conducted a second round.

We release the complete annotations because transparency is fundamental to our project. Furthermore, we believe they hold philological value for studying dialectal and gender variants.

Who are the annotators?

The annotation was entrusted to the CLiC (Centre de Llenguatge i Computació) team from the University of Barcelona. They selected a group of three annotators (two men and one woman), who received a scholarship to do this work.

The annotation team was composed of:

Annotator 1: 1 female annotator, aged 18-25, L1 Catalan, student in the Modern Languages and Literatures degree, with a focus on Catalan.

Annotators 2 & 3: 2 male annotators, aged 18-25, L1 Catalan, students in the Catalan Philology degree.

1 female supervisor, aged 40-50, L1 Catalan, graduate in Physics and in Linguistics, Ph.D. in Signal Theory and Communications.

To do the annotation they used a Google Drive spreadsheet

Personal and Sensitive Information

The Common Voice dataset consists of people who have donated their voice online. We don't share here their voices, but their gender and accent. You agree to not attempt to determine the identity of speakers in the Common Voice dataset.

Considerations for Using the Data

Social Impact of Dataset

The ID come from the Common Voice dataset, that consists of people who have donated their voice online.

You agree to not attempt to determine the identity of speakers in the Common Voice dataset.

The information from this corpus will allow us to train and evaluate well balanced Catalan ASR models. Furthermore, we believe they hold philological value for studying dialectal and gender variants.

Discussion of Biases

Most of the voices of the common voice in Catalan correspond to men with a central accent between 40 and 60 years old. The aim of this dataset is to provide information that allows to minimize the biases that this could cause.

For the gender annotation, we have only considered "H" (male) and "D" (female).

Other Known Limitations

[N/A]

Additional Information

Dataset Curators

Language Technologies Unit at the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (langtech@bsc.es)

This work has been promoted and financed by the Generalitat de Catalunya through the Aina project.

Licensing Information

This dataset is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 license.

It can be used for any purpose, whether academic or commercial, under the terms of the license. Give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.

Citation Information

DOI

Contributions

The annotation was entrusted to the STeL team from the University of Barcelona.

The data published here are a supplementary for a paper to be published in Metaphor and Social Words (under revision).

Two debates organised and published by TVP and TVN were transcribed and annotated with Metaphor Identification Method. We have used eMargin software (a collaborative textual annotation tool, (Kehoe and Gee 2013) and a slightly modified version of MIP (Pragglejaz 2007). Each lexical unit in the transcript was labelled as a metaphor related word (MRW) if its “contextual meaning was related to the more basic meaning by some form of similarity” (Steen 2007). The meanings were established with the Wielki Słownik Języka Polskiego (Great Dictionary of Polish, ed. (Żmigrodzki 2019). In addition to MRW, lexemes which create a metaphorical expression together with MRW were tagged as metaphor expression word (MEW). At least two words are needed to identify the actual metaphorical expression, since MRW cannot appear without MEW. Grammatical construction of the metaphor (Sullivan 2009) is asymmetrical: one word is conceptually autonomous and the other is conceptually dependent on the first. Within construction grammar terms (Langacker 2008), metaphor related word is elaborated with/by metaphorical expression word, because the basic meaning of MRW is elaborated and extended to more figurative meaning only if it is used jointly with MEW. Moreover, the meaning of the MEW is rather basic, concrete, as it remains unchanged in connection with the MRW. This can be clearly seen in the expression often used in our data: “Służba zdrowia jest w zapaści” (“Health service suffers from a collapse.”) where the word “zapaść” (“collapse”) is an example of MRW and words “służba zdrowia” (“health service”) are labeled as MEW. The English translation of this expression needs a different verb, instead of “jest w zapaści” (“is in collapse”) the English unmarked collocation is “suffers from a collapse”, therefore words “suffers from a collapse” are labeled as MRW. The “collapse” could be caused by heart failure, such as cardiac arrest or any other life-threatening medical condition and “health service” is portrayed as if it could literally suffer from such a condition – a collapse.

The data are in csv tables exported from xml files downloaded from eMargin site. Prior to annotation transcripts were divided to 40 parts, each for one annotator. MRW words are marked as MLN, MEW are marked as MLP and functional words within metaphorical expression are marked MLI, other words are marked just noana, which means no annotation needed.

This data collection contains diachronic Word Usage Graphs (WUGs) for German. Find a description of the data format, code to process the data and further datasets on the WUGsite.

We provide additional data under misc/:

• semeval: a larger list of words and (noisy) change scores assembled in the pre-annotation phase for SemEval-2020 Task 1.

Please find more information on the provided data in the paper referenced below.

Version: 1.0.0, 30.9.2021.

Reference

Dominik Schlechtweg, Nina Tahmasebi, Simon Hengchen, Haim Dubossarsky, Barbara McGillivray. 2021. DWUG: A large Resource of Diachronic Word Usage Graphs in Four Languages.