What does it suggest when a team has manually examined more than 1,000 mistakes?
Question: Answer in one to three sentences using only the guidance about sizing a manually inspected validation sample.
Sample answer: It suggests that reviewing more than 1,000 mistakes by hand is unusual. The size of the manually inspected set should be based on how many examples the team can realistically analyze carefully.
Key points:
- Manually analyzing more than 1,000 errors is rare.
- The set size should match practical review capacity.
Rubric: The answer should say that hand review above 1,000 examples is uncommon and connect that to the limits of available manual analysis time.
0
1
Tags
Machine Learning
Deep Learning
Supervised Learning
Dive into Deep Learning @ D2L
Data Science
Machine Learning Strategy
Machine Learning Yearning @ DeepLearning.AI
Related
What usually limits the size of a manual review set when data is abundant?
Eyeball Dev Set Size Under Abundant Data
When data is abundant, the human-reviewed development set should be sized according to how many examples the team can inspect _____.
Link each dev-set sizing idea to its meaning.
Order the steps for choosing a development set when data are plentiful.
How should an evaluation set be sized when labeled data is abundant?
How should a manual-audit sample be sized when records are plentiful?
What does it suggest when a team has manually examined more than 1,000 mistakes?
Which choice best matches the advice for sizing a review set when data is plentiful?
True or false: A recommendation of analyzing about 1,000 mistakes means the Eyeball dev set must contain exactly 1,000 examples.