hepcrawl
hepcrawl copied to clipboard
inspirehep
post-enhancement: automatically set 'citeable=True'
Create a workflow task to (in case) add 'citeable=True' which could be added to POSTENHANCE_RECORD for HEP records.
Expected Behavior
That task would check whether record has DOI, report number or pubnote and then sets citeable=True.
Context
Instead of checking it in each spider, user suggestion or BibEdit, one central place should be used for that task.
Apart from a few exceptions our current definition of citeable is based on arXiv nr or pub note. We would need to decide whether we want in the future to consider all papers with DOI or report number as citeable.
- Annette
On 1 Sep 2017, at 11:26, Florian Schwennsen [email protected] wrote:
Create a workflow task to (in case) add 'citeable=True' which could be added to POSTENHANCE_RECORD for HEP records.
Expected Behavior
That task would check whether record has DOI, report number or pubnote and then sets citeable=True.
Context
Instead of checking it in each spider, user suggestion or BibEdit, one central place should be used for that task.
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/inspirehep/hepcrawl/issues/173, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AM1-OyNx2McG0eJHn39g1UH92G5c721mks5sd83IgaJpZM4PJ6fQ.
see https://labs.inspirehep.net/internal-help/knowledge-base/hep-publishedeprint-curation/
Interesting. I don’t think we ever agreed on that. Or is that just my bad memory? As far s report numbers are concerned I remember that they were not considered as standardised enough to reliably catch citations. We should bring this up again on standup.
- Annette
On 1 Sep 2017, at 11:50, Florian Schwennsen [email protected] wrote:
see https://labs.inspirehep.net/internal-help/knowledge-base/hep-publishedeprint-curation/ https://labs.inspirehep.net/internal-help/knowledge-base/hep-publishedeprint-curation/ — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/inspirehep/hepcrawl/issues/173#issuecomment-326539642, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AM1-Ozvdp7Q5sNiGJWOUknE24fdTuMQ3ks5sd9NMgaJpZM4PJ6fQ.
this is currently already implemented partially in the literature builder in https://github.com/inspirehep/inspire-schemas/blob/36bb1791b4df5890e5445f850c59ed9c5ee9b7c9/inspire_schemas/builders/literature.py#L171 and https://github.com/inspirehep/inspire-schemas/blob/36bb1791b4df5890e5445f850c59ed9c5ee9b7c9/inspire_schemas/builders/literature.py#L415-L416 for arXiv and publication info respectively (I didn't know about that page either). So if at record creation time there is enough information to make a paper citeable, it is automatically flagged as citeable. This includes user suggestions and hepcrawl harvests (both new and updates), but excludes the case where a curator modification in the record editor would make a record (non-)citeable.
Neither do I remember that we agreed on RNs and DOIs - but I missed quite some standups, so I checked the training pages thinking they would reflect the agreed status.