User talk:Kpl21/Final Term Paper
- You state alot of basic facts about mitosis early in your introduction. You should reference papers for these fundamental facts. Having 3 references is not nearly enough but this would be a real easy place to increase the amount of references you have!
- I am not sure I understand what the assumptions of the model are. It may be a good idea to list the to make it clear what you are conveying... An assumption for a model is usually a definitive statement that is important for creating the equations of a model I think you are getting at that when you mention Michaelis-Menten kinetics, but the way you phrase it makes it seem the the assumption is being refuted...?
- Your model description/parameter table is good, but your results are entirely missing... Personally results took me the longest time to write so I would consider sending the most time working on that, then revising what you have.
- As for discussion, here are some questions you could try to answer/research:
- Is the hypothesis of your paper supported?
- Considering the complicated nature of the cell signaling network, are there other proteins that affect the delaying of frog egg mitosis? Would this require more dimensions?
- How does your extension fit within the nature of this subject?
- Overall, while you are missing a significant amount of necessary writing, I think if you dedicate you time to working on the fundamental parts of your paper, you could have a strong final paper. As long as your actual work/coding is complete, you will have time to write what is needed for the final paper, but you would need to start writing soon.
- Term paper survey submitted with term paper?
- Significance of problem?
- Statement of hypothesis?
- List of references?
- Too small a reference list.
- Properly formatted references?
- State variables, parameters and inputs to the model clearly distinguished?
- Term-by-term description of model components?
- Yes, well done.
- Have you described model assumptions?
- Description of equation simulation?
- Results described and compared to original paper?
- Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
- Figures and legends to show results?
- Discrepancies relative to original model?
- Yes, but you confuse a limit cycle with hysteresis.
- Uploaded Mathematica file?
- How well does the model support the original hypothesis?
- Discussed, but could have greater depth.
- Support for hypothesis and assumptions from other data in the literature?
- Very limited citations of other literature.
- Limitations of results?
- Some discussion of limitations.
- Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
- Some discussion of discrepancies; hysteresis is confused with the notion of a limit cycle.
- Relationship to other work in the field?
- Discussed, but not in depth; few citations.
- Discussion of future work?
- Discussed briefly, but not in depth; should have citations.
Overall Term Paper Quality
- How well was the model replicated?
- Much of it was replicated, but not all.
- Based on the term paper, how well did you understand the material?
- Understanding is fair to good.
- How well written is the term paper?
- Some errors, and the style is sometimes too informal, but it is possible to follow.
- How hard was the model extension that you did?
- Not very hard.
- How good was the extension?
- The results were reasonable, but as pointed out, almost obvious in advance.
- Mathematica code clear and well annotated?
- Very few annotations.
- Mathematica code generates figures when evaluated?
On the whole, this is a fair to good term paper. The Discussion should have had many more citations to the literature, and should have provided an update on more recent developments. Hysteresis was confused with the notion of a limit cycle. Otherwise OK.