# User talk:Mmh115/Final Term Paper

From BIOL 300 Wiki

## Contents

## 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 too few, and all but one are from the original paper.

- Properly formatted references?
- Yes.

### Model Description

- State variables, parameters and inputs to the model clearly distinguished?
- Yes.

- Term-by-term description of model components?
- Yes, but walking the reader through at least one example of equations 4 through 7 would have been helpful, rather than providing a general overview.

- Have you described model assumptions?
- Yes.

- Description of equation simulation?
- Yes.

### Results

- Results described and compared to original paper?
- Yes.

- Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
- Yes. However, you are confusing hysteresis, which is due to bistability, and the ability of a system to show - or not to show - a limit cycle, which is very different.

- 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?
- The literature that is discussed is all from the original paper; newer literature should have been cited.

- Limitations of results?
- Well discussed.

- Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
- Discrepancies are discussed, but the idea of hysteresis is not the same as the idea of whether or not a system can generate a limit cycle.

- Relationship to other work in the field?
- Only work cited in the original paper is discussed, not current work, or work since the paper was published.

- Discussion of future work?
- Some discussion of future work, but it would have been essential to cite more recent literature for this.

### Overall Term Paper Quality

- How well was the model replicated?
- On the whole, replication was very good.

- Based on the term paper, how well did you understand the material?
- Understanding was very good.

- How well written is the term paper?
- The term paper is well written.

- How hard was the model extension that you did?
- The extension was not that hard.

- How good was the extension?
- The results of the extension were interesting.

- Mathematica code clear and well annotated?
- Yes.

- Mathematica code generates figures when evaluated?
- Yes.

On the whole, this is a good to very good term paper. More careful reading of the recent literature would have led to greater depth in the Introduction and the Discussion. Confusing hysteresis with the ability to form a limit cycle is problematic. Other aspects of the term paper were excellent.

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