Inclusions Lowered My Score
Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods
-
- DustMod
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:12 am
- Location: Third stone from the Sun
Inclusions Lowered My Score
If we are to click on what appear to be inclusions, and we have been officially told to continue clicking on them, clicking on an inclusions in a calibration movie should not be counted against you, it should be counted as correct at this time. I'm not trying to whine about my score, it's just that I'm a bit of a perfectionist, and one of my goals here is to keep my Specificity and Sensitivity above 99%. Now, that clicked inclusions just dropped my Specificity down below that.
Calibration Movies Answered Correctly 532
Calibration Movies Answered Incorrectly 5
Your Overall Score: 527
Total Real Movies Viewed: 1056
Your Rank: {I don't care}
Specificity: 98.87%
Sensitivity: 99.26%
Well, back to dusting to get it back over 99%
Calibration Movies Answered Correctly 532
Calibration Movies Answered Incorrectly 5
Your Overall Score: 527
Total Real Movies Viewed: 1056
Your Rank: {I don't care}
Specificity: 98.87%
Sensitivity: 99.26%
Well, back to dusting to get it back over 99%
Hmmm. I just clicked on an inclusion, which is my general policy, and this was counted as a wrong hit on a calibration movie.
Are we being discouraged from clicking on inclusions???
Statistics for oscar
Your Overall Score: 702
Total Movies Viewed: 2634
Your Rank: 715 out of 11828
Specificity: 99.15%
Sensitivity: 96.82%
Are we being discouraged from clicking on inclusions???
Statistics for oscar
Your Overall Score: 702
Total Movies Viewed: 2634
Your Rank: 715 out of 11828
Specificity: 99.15%
Sensitivity: 96.82%
What we think, we become. Buddha
Calibration movie
Hi Tim, Hi Sharqua,
Like Tim (and Sharqua) I'm sorta a perfectionist too, at least I wanted to keep my %'s high.
Thanks,
fjgiie
Just this morning I must have missed a calibration track. My specificity dropped from 99.64 to 99.60 with one bad click, and I was not watching the score at the time. Around the same time I clicked on one of those inclusions, however that shouldn't drop the top percentage.Sharqua wrote:Same thing happened to me.
Like Tim (and Sharqua) I'm sorta a perfectionist too, at least I wanted to keep my %'s high.
Thanks,
fjgiie
-
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:55 pm
- Location: Topanga, California
Hi fjgiie, hi all,fjgiie wrote:Hi Tim, Hi Sharqua,
Just this morning I must have missed a calibration track. My specificity dropped from 99.64 to 99.60 with one bad click, and I was not watching the score at the time. Around the same time I clicked on one of those inclusions, however that shouldn't drop the top percentage.Sharqua wrote:Same thing happened to me.
Like Tim (and Sharqua) I'm sorta a perfectionist too, at least I wanted to keep my %'s high.
Thanks,
fjgiie
same to me, dropping my specificity to 99.57.
As I supposed in another post (suggestions thread), in my eyes there came in new negative CM´s based on "proved negative real ones" (which would be a good idea in my opinion).
Maybe we are faced to advanced (subtile) training methods? . If so the team would use real movies that passed the first round without any agreement. My personal consequence is: I don´t click "very very hard to see subsurface dots" furthermore. Hard times for us perfectionists.
Another possible explanation to your experience: There are a small number (maybe only 1?) negative CM´s on the wild since project started, containing very hard to find subsurface features. I found them.
Ciao
-peter
Wir leben in einer Zeit vollkommener Mittel und verworrener Ziele. (Albert Einstein)
Me too. Can we please be told how the team have confidently decided that these subsurface dots are "inclusions", and inclusions of what exactly? If inclusions were such a well-known artefact of manufacturing (and so far I've only seen a single assertion from albutterworth that they are) why haven't they been included in the tutorial and test movies as something to ignore?oscar wrote:I just clicked on an inclusion, which is my general policy, and this was counted as a wrong hit on a calibration movie.
Are we being discouraged from clicking on inclusions???
The fact that they all seemed to have come from the same area of aerogel (movies numbered 4xxxxx, before they changed the numbering system) is clearly suspicious, but until we're told NOT to click on these, for clearly explained reasons, I like most folk will continue to do so.
Have they actually extracted anything from these aerogel tiles and analysed them in detail, or are they dismissing them from what they previously knew about inclusions? I hope they're not ruling them out simply because they don't look like what they were expecting based on preliminary experiments.
Some official explanation and advice needed here I think. And sooner rather than later, given that there are now nearly 12,000 willing (but ?confused, including me) helpers in this exciting project.
-
- DustMod
- Posts: 694
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 8:12 pm
- Location: Horsetown, USA
Ask and ye shall receive!
Here is the very latest information available.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... .php?t=879
Hope that helps!
Here is the very latest information available.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... .php?t=879
Hope that helps!
No dessert for you- ONE MONTH!
Unfortunatley not. I'm well aware of that posting 3 days ago, but it doesn't answer the basic question I'm asking: how sure are they that these subsurface dots are artefactual "inclusions"? Of course it seems a reasonable explanation, but if they had previous knowledge of these, why no mention in the training?DustBuster wrote:Ask and ye shall receive!
Here is the very latest information available.
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... .php?t=879
Hope that helps!
I just want to hear a clear and convincing explanation of what these little pesky things actually are!
Well included in that post is the following statement:
"Movie 714410V1 is an example of multiple tiny black dots below the aerogel surface. They are incredibly subtle, but many of you are finding them.
We think they are probably inclusions in the aerogel (from the manufacturing process), partly because they are so numerous, and partly because they look like particles, and not like tracks made by particles. They are less likely candidates to be interstellar, but intriguing nontheless. We have logged the coordinates for a number of these black dots and we will continue trying to verify their origin."
As you can see they are still under investigation and finding them is appreciated by the team.
So untill otherwise advised i should keep clicking on them.
"Movie 714410V1 is an example of multiple tiny black dots below the aerogel surface. They are incredibly subtle, but many of you are finding them.
We think they are probably inclusions in the aerogel (from the manufacturing process), partly because they are so numerous, and partly because they look like particles, and not like tracks made by particles. They are less likely candidates to be interstellar, but intriguing nontheless. We have logged the coordinates for a number of these black dots and we will continue trying to verify their origin."
As you can see they are still under investigation and finding them is appreciated by the team.
So untill otherwise advised i should keep clicking on them.
Just dusting...
-
- DustMod
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:12 am
- Location: Third stone from the Sun
-
- DustMod
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:12 am
- Location: Third stone from the Sun
Sorry to double post, but as for including an example of a cal movie with an inclusion, it's my understanding that cal movies can't be linked (the id number is fake). I guess after I see that I failed a cal movie because I clicked on an inclusion I could go back and get a screen shot. I'll try that next time, but I'm hoping there won't be a next time.
Sticky for negative Calibration movies with possible tracks
I think there should be a sticky (in both the Problems and Support forum, and the Discussion forum) where we can all post the ID#s of "no-track" calibration movies that have features (inclusions, etc.) that could reasonably be clicked on as tracks (use the bak button to get the ID#). We cannot view thema again, but the stardust team can, and maybe they would be good enough to remove them from circulation.
I just found such a feature on calibration movie # 1930972V1.
It is a faint feature at the right near the bottom, no actual particle (inclusion) is visible, but something is happening there that could possibly be a track. I think it should definitely be removed from the list of "no-track" calibration movies."
Help us help the team to improve the @home project!
I just found such a feature on calibration movie # 1930972V1.
It is a faint feature at the right near the bottom, no actual particle (inclusion) is visible, but something is happening there that could possibly be a track. I think it should definitely be removed from the list of "no-track" calibration movies."
Help us help the team to improve the @home project!
It's best to post issues with calib. movies to this thread: http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... .php?t=473
Just dusting...