Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Standardise Metric Naming #743

Open
DanTanAtAims opened this issue Apr 26, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

Standardise Metric Naming #743

DanTanAtAims opened this issue Apr 26, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@DanTanAtAims
Copy link
Collaborator

Coral Cover metric naming should be standard across ADRIA.

  • absolute_cover: coral cover in absolute units, e.g., m^2
  • relative_cover: coral cover relative to habitable area. Ideally in [0, 1]
  • total_cover: coral cover relative to total reef area including uninhabitable. Ideally in [0, 1]

Interfaces loading external data sets should make sure the naming is assigned to the correct data and that any unit conversions are applied.

@ConnectedSystems
Copy link
Collaborator

ConnectedSystems commented Apr 26, 2024

Note for everyone: this is associated with #465, and could be part of the refactor of all metrics to leverage YAXArrays/metadata (#524).

@Zapiano
Copy link
Collaborator

Zapiano commented May 20, 2024

I think there might be a confusion when using "absolute" and "total". The word "relative" gives a hint that the cover will be a fraction of something, but it doesn't say "relative to what". Since we have cover relative to the habitable area and relative to the total area, what do you think about relative_habitable_cover and relative_total_cover? Too much?

@arlowhite
Copy link
Collaborator

arlowhite commented May 20, 2024

I agree with including "habitable" in the name. relative_habitable_cover 👍
maybe "all" instead of "total"? so relative_all_cover
or what about relative_reef_cover?

@VHallerBull
Copy link

I agree with Arlo, both would be considered relative just to a different reference.

The other part to consider is resolution, from my use of adria so far it seems to use total_cover when there is one value per scenario while the other two are used for one value per location (so hundreds of timeseries per scenario). So, the question here is, do we use the same names independent of the resolution of should we have differences i.e.
loc_relative_cover and relative_cover would be the same metric but at the two different resolutions

@ConnectedSystems
Copy link
Collaborator

ConnectedSystems commented Sep 17, 2024

so far it seems to use total_cover when there is one value per scenario

You should be able to use any metric summarised by scenario or location. Less supported are the functional group-based metrics.

@ConnectedSystems
Copy link
Collaborator

Further to the above, the metrics are documented (although how it's presented needs work)

https://open-aims.github.io/ADRIA.jl/dev/API/#Metrics

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants