User talk:Jpp85/Benchmark III: Results

From BIOL 300 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Student Comments

I think it would be good for you to add in a bit more about what you learned from each graph in their description. The graphing descriptions are good though, just maybe try to connect it back to the hypothesis more. The graphs that you did not mention in your discrepancy paragraph look good. The print underneath the original simulations is pretty small and hard to read so either try to make those bigger (or crop it out if it is already stated underneath your replicated graphs. Also, for the sentences that start like "In figure #", add in a comma after the figure number (in the discrepancies paragraph).

--Lexi Meglio (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Some minor changes -Change "oncogones" to oncogenes -Create a space after "of sensitivity to initial conditions.In" --Robert Herd (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2017 (EDT)

Instructor Comments

  • Benchmark submitted on time?
    • Yes
  • Rubric submitted on time?
    • Yes
  • Results described and compared to original paper?
    • You need to include prose outside of your figure legends describing your results and providing context in which they can be interpreted.
  • Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
    • Not in any detail
  • Figures and legends to show results?
    • Although listing the parameters used in the figure legends is helpful and will inevitably lead to some similar text from the paper, it is not OK to copy that text verbatim. The figure legends are your opportunity to concisely summarize the figures in your own words.
  • Discrepancies relative to original model?
    • Yes
  • Uploaded Mathematica file?
    • Yes

For all students' notebooks, I need to be able to start a fresh session of Mathematica, open the notebook, click Evaluation > Evaluate Notebook, and get results. I attempted to run your code, and it worked just fine. Please make sure that for the final paper this remains the case!

It is very important that you include detailed comments in your code, as well as clear statements indicating authorship (your work or your partner's; this you've already done).

On the whole, this is a poor Results section. Descriptions of your figures are missing, and you haven't related any of it to the biological hypothesis. For the final paper, I recommend making the changes outlined here. Remember also to include results from your model extension for the final term paper in this section.

--Jeffrey Gill (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2017 (EDT)