User talk:Jcm168/Final Term Paper

From BIOL 300 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Student Comments

Instructor Comments

  • Term paper survey submitted with term paper?
    • Yes.

Introduction

  • Significance of problem?
    • Yes.
  • Statement of hypothesis?
    • Yes.
  • List of references?
    • Yes, but 6 of 8 are from the original paper. This is too few for a scholarly introduction and discussion.
  • Properly formatted references?
    • Yes.

Model Description

  • State variables, parameters and inputs to the model clearly distinguished?
    • Yes.
  • Term-by-term description of model components?
    • Overall terms described, details of terms not described adequately. This was requested at the time that the Model Description benchmark was submitted.
  • Have you described model assumptions?
    • Yes.
  • Description of equation simulation?
    • Yes, but no description of the extension and its simulation.

Results

  • Results described and compared to original paper?
    • Yes, but original figures are not shown.
  • Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
    • Yes.
  • Figures and legends to show results?
    • Yes.
  • Discrepancies relative to original model?
    • Yes.
  • Uploaded Mathematica file?
    • Yes.

Discussion

  • How well does the model support the original hypothesis?
    • Well discussed.
  • Support for hypothesis and assumptions from other data in the literature?
    • Only one additional paper is cited.
  • Limitations of results?
    • Well discussed.
  • Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
    • There were none.
  • Relationship to other work in the field?
    • Only briefly discussed, with only one citation.
  • Discussion of future work?
    • Only briefly discussed, no citations.

Overall Term Paper Quality

  • How well was the model replicated?
    • Perfectly.
  • Based on the term paper, how well did you understand the material?
    • Excellent understanding.
  • How well written is the term paper?
    • Some typographical errors, but on the whole it is clear and easy to follow.
  • How hard was the model extension that you did?
    • If some actual chemo-attraction had been implemented, this would have been excellent as a first step to understanding development; what was done was of some interest.
  • How good was the extension?
    • The extension was well-implemented.
  • Mathematica code clear and well annotated?
    • Yes.
  • Mathematica code generates figures when evaluated?
    • Yes.

On the whole, this is a very good to excellent term paper. More depth in the introduction and the discussion would have improved it further, and if the extension had included some chemo-attraction, it would have been an exciting first step towards creating a model of development.

--Hillel Chiel (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2017 (EDT)