You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There seems to an issue with the clusters in gazetteer_example.py
When adding the cluster_ids it has a for loop that uses enumerate to create the cluster_ids, but then it also uses a += 1 counter for the cluster_ids. This is resulting in strange behavior where multiple groups of matches end up sharing the same cluster_id.
In addition, the gazetteer.search function can return the same entry from the canonical dataset for multiple entries in the messy dataset, however the clustering code enforces 1 cluster_id for each entry in the canonical dataset. This results in the cluster_id getting overwritten for the canonical dataset.
For example if Messy_Entry_1 matches with Canonical_Entry_1, they will both be assigned to cluster_id = 1.
Then if Messy_Entry_2 also matches with Canonical_Entry_1, they will both be assigned to cluster_id = 2.
The result will be
{Messy_Entry_1: {'Cluster ID': 1} }
{Messy_Entry_2: {'Cluster ID': 2} }
{Canonical_Entry_1: {'Cluster ID': 2}}
pull request #135 has been created resolving this issue
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
jmiller558
changed the title
Typo in gazetteer_example.py
Issue with cluster_id in gazetteer_example.py
May 26, 2023
There seems to an issue with the clusters in gazetteer_example.py
When adding the cluster_ids it has a for loop that uses enumerate to create the cluster_ids, but then it also uses a += 1 counter for the cluster_ids. This is resulting in strange behavior where multiple groups of matches end up sharing the same cluster_id.
In addition, the gazetteer.search function can return the same entry from the canonical dataset for multiple entries in the messy dataset, however the clustering code enforces 1 cluster_id for each entry in the canonical dataset. This results in the cluster_id getting overwritten for the canonical dataset.
For example if Messy_Entry_1 matches with Canonical_Entry_1, they will both be assigned to cluster_id = 1.
Then if Messy_Entry_2 also matches with Canonical_Entry_1, they will both be assigned to cluster_id = 2.
The result will be
{Messy_Entry_1: {'Cluster ID': 1} }
{Messy_Entry_2: {'Cluster ID': 2} }
{Canonical_Entry_1: {'Cluster ID': 2}}
pull request #135 has been created resolving this issue
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: