sub:assertion {
  t4: npx:introduces <http://purl.org/np/RAfMdSyW3nLMbyrR5dtvxawi_JEJ-EO4bAzzBBAwVtqOE#table> .
  sub:paragraph c4o:hasContent "We compared the common 1, 073 triples assessed in each crowdsourcing approach against our gold standard and measured precision as well as inter-rater agreement values for each type of task (see Table 4). For the contest-based approach, the tool allowed two participants to evaluate a single resource. In total, there were 268 inter-evaluations for which we calculated the triple-based inter-agreement (adjusting the observed agreement with agreement by chance) to be 0.38. For the microtasks, we measured the inter-rater agreement values between a maximum of 5 workers for each type of task using Fleiss’ kappa measure [10]. While the inter-rater agreement between workers for the interlinking was high (0.7396), the ones for object values and datatypes was moderate to low with 0.5348 and 0.4960, respectively. Table 4 reports on the precision achieved by the LF experts and crowd in each stage. In the following we present further details on the results for each type of task." ;
    po:contains <http://purl.org/np/RAfMdSyW3nLMbyrR5dtvxawi_JEJ-EO4bAzzBBAwVtqOE#table> ;
    a doco:Paragraph .
}