Hi all,
I’m Matteo Sorci a PhD student at the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology.
This post is requesting your kind participation to a survey that
Gianluca Antonini and I have prepared in the study of human perception
and classification of emotions.
The survey consists in spending a few minutes labeling a few images.
Until now 760 partecipants took part to the survey for a total of 16571
annotated images.
You (and your colleagues,friends and students) can participate in this
survey comfortably installed on your chair by clicking to the
following link:
http://lts5www.epfl.ch/face/index.php
That’s what to do:
1. Choose a language.
2. The first time you have to create a new account (click on
create a new user) and insert a few personal information.
The socio-economics fields are important for us in order to segment the
labeler population based on different background knowledge, age,
occupation and education.
The ethnic group is relevant for us to investigate the choice behavior
of people when faced to images of individuals belonging to the same or
to another ethnic group.
IMPORTANT: the user can guarantee her own privacy choosing freely her
own username and password. The data will be treated confidentially and
only for scientific purposes.
Anyway, most of the fields include a "None"
option for those responders that don’t want to answer.
3. Once logged in you can start a survey by specifying the place
where you are (home, work or other) and choosing the number of images
you want to annotate in the current survey.
4. By clicking on "Start the survey " you will start the labeling
procedure for the chosen number of images. The following image shows
the interface :
For each image in the group you have to choose one of the available
options and click on the right arrow in order to validate the current
choice and pass to the next image .
N.B.1 : The "I don’t know" option should correspond to those
situations where the expression is ambiguous.
N.B.2 : if you find the survey too long you can stop whenever you
want by logging off and restart from the first unlabeled image at your
next login.
5. At the end of the survey push the "Validate Survey" button to
validate the whole survey.
6. If you want and if you have time please make more surveys .
Thanks in advance for your precious help,
Matteo & Gianluca
P.S.1 : in case of any problem please feel free to contact us!
P.S. 2: real time stats on the survey available on my web page
http://ltswww.epfl.ch/~sorci
as well my publications on the topic
sorcimatt spammed:
(mercifuly snipped)
And the relevance to logic is? Annoying a good cross-section of the
academic world may not be the wisest course of action for a Ph.D.
student.
It’s "logically" not spam…and I thought it could be anyway
interesting for all researchers and anyone involved in science…in
addition I am posting this request in several groups because the goal
of the survey is to collect the more heterogeneous as possible group of
labelers.
So don’t consider this post as spam.
Matteo
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
semio…@hotmail.com wrote:
> sorcimatt spammed:
> (mercifuly snipped)
> And the relevance to logic is? Annoying a good cross-section of the
> academic world may not be the wisest course of action for a Ph.D.
> student.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
sorcimatt wrote:
> It’s "logically" not spam…and I thought it could be anyway
> interesting for all researchers and anyone involved in science…in
> addition I am posting this request in several groups because the goal
> of the survey is to collect the more heterogeneous as possible group of
> labelers.
> So don’t consider this post as spam.
> Matteo
> semio…@hotmail.com wrote:
> > sorcimatt spammed:
> > (mercifuly snipped)
> > And the relevance to logic is? Annoying a good cross-section of the
> > academic world may not be the wisest course of action for a Ph.D.
> > student.
Your spam is not bad as far as spam goes (and is even better-written
than some on-topic crankery), but it does meet the definition of
newsgroup spam on Wikipedia:
Newsgroup spam and Forum spam
Main article: Newsgroup spam
Newsgroup spam predates e-mail spam, and targets Usenet newsgroups and
it consists of repetitous posting of a message (or substantially
similar messages). The Breidbart Index was developed to provide an
objective measure of the "spamminess" of a multi-posted or cross-posted
message on Usenet. Spamming an internet forum is when a user posts a
message that is off-topic or has little relevance to the subject being
discussed, or a post that fails to contribute to the thread…
Do you disagree?
Yes, I do agree….so sorry for this spam…..it was for a good purpose
and not in bad faith!
Matteo
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
semio…@hotmail.com wrote:
> sorcimatt wrote:
> > It’s "logically" not spam…and I thought it could be anyway
> > interesting for all researchers and anyone involved in science…in
> > addition I am posting this request in several groups because the goal
> > of the survey is to collect the more heterogeneous as possible group of
> > labelers.
> > So don’t consider this post as spam.
> > Matteo
> > semio…@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > sorcimatt spammed:
> > > (mercifuly snipped)
> > > And the relevance to logic is? Annoying a good cross-section of the
> > > academic world may not be the wisest course of action for a Ph.D.
> > > student.
> Your spam is not bad as far as spam goes (and is even better-written
> than some on-topic crankery), but it does meet the definition of
> newsgroup spam on Wikipedia:
> Newsgroup spam and Forum spam
> Main article: Newsgroup spam
> Newsgroup spam predates e-mail spam, and targets Usenet newsgroups and
> it consists of repetitous posting of a message (or substantially
> similar messages). The Breidbart Index was developed to provide an
> objective measure of the "spamminess" of a multi-posted or cross-posted
> message on Usenet. Spamming an internet forum is when a user posts a
> message that is off-topic or has little relevance to the subject being
> discussed, or a post that fails to contribute to the thread…
> Do you disagree?
sorcimatt wrote:
> Yes, I do agree….so sorry for this spam…..it was for a good purpose
> and not in bad faith!
Don’t worry too much about it – it was mild spam. I was in a somewhat
irritable mood at the end of a long day and decided to be pedantic.
Good luck with your studies.