Skip to main content

Table 1 Evaluation results for the intelligibility score and the circularity score. Subjects were asked to rate the circularity and intelligibility of definitions by answering 3 questions. The top and low scoring GO-terms were presented in random order and the score was not visible to the evaluators. Explanation on how to read the results: Q1 – Biol. 1 disagreed with only 6/50 terms that received a high circularity index, whereas he agreed with 49/50 terms, that received a low circularity score. Q2: Biol. 1 classified 49/50 terms that received a high intelligibility and 44/50 terms with a low intelligible index, as "roughly intelligible". Q3: Biol. 1 classified 29/50 terms that received a high intelligibility and 3/50 terms with a low intelligible index, as "fully intelligible".

From: Quality control for terms and definitions in ontologies and taxonomies

  Q1: Is the definition not circular, i.e. does the definition provide more information than the term itself? Q2: Is the definition intelligible, i.e. did you roughly understand the meaning of the GO entry by reading the definition? Q3: Is the definition intelligible, i.e. are you able to fully understand the meaning of the GO entry without requiring further reading of other sources?
Person score Circular> Not Circular Intelligible Not Intelligible Intelligible Not Intelligible
Biol. 1 – PostDoc 6/50 49/50 49/50 44/50 29/50 3/50
Biol. 2 – PostDoc 1/50 48/50 50/50 22/50 40/50 1/50
Biol. 3 – BSc 1/50 46/50 44/50 49/50 45/50 2/50
Bioinf. – MSc 3/50 46/50 45/50 4/50 48/50 1/50