User talk:Rah175/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?
    • Stated, but not very clearly.
  • Statement of hypothesis?
    • Yes, but not very clearly.
  • List of references?
    • Minimal list.
  • Properly formatted references?
    • One citation is invalid.

Model Description

  • State variables, parameters and inputs to the model clearly distinguished?
    • Yes.
  • Term-by-term description of model components?
    • Description shows conceptual confusion.
  • Have you described model assumptions?
    • Yes, but not very clearly.
  • Description of equation simulation?
    • Not clearly described.

Results

  • Results described and compared to original paper?
    • Yes, but not clearly.
  • Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
    • Although some figures are shown that are supposed to be related to the Hodgkin Huxley model, they are not explained, and are not compared to the Izhikevich model analysis.
  • Figures and legends to show results?
    • Yes, but several are not really explained.
  • Discrepancies relative to original model?
    • Briefly discussed.
  • Uploaded Mathematica file?
    • Yes, but did not use student ID number at the beginning of the title of each file.

Discussion

  • How well does the model support the original hypothesis?
    • Discussed but not clearly. The section on discussing the bifurcations consists of the sentence: “Section where I will discuss the bifurcation results and how the equilibrium points and nodes elicit any behavioral differences.”
  • Support for hypothesis and assumptions from other data in the literature?
    • The two papers that are cited are the original model paper and one other paper; no depth of understanding of that paper is shown.
  • Limitations of results?
    • Limitations discussed, but not very clearly.
  • Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
    • Not discussed.
  • Relationship to other work in the field?
    • Not discussed.
  • Discussion of future work?
    • Briefly and vaguely discussed.

Overall Term Paper Quality

  • How well was the model replicated?
    • The grid picture was replicated. The network part of the paper was not replicated.
  • Based on the term paper, how well did you understand the material?
    • Understanding is very poor.
  • How well written is the term paper?
    • The paper has many typographical errors, use informal language, and is frequency very unclear and hard to follow.
  • How hard was the model extension that you did?
    • The proposed extension was reasonable.
  • How good was the extension?
    • The bifurcation code that was used was from team members, and was properly acknowledged. However, the results of trying to plot the 4 dimensional null surfaces for the Hodgkin/Huxley model were not properly explained, and it is not clear that the author really understood what he was trying to do.
  • Mathematica code clear and well annotated?
    • Code is reasonably clear and has annotations.
  • Mathematica code generates figures when evaluated?
    • Yes.

On the whole, this is a very poor term paper. It reflects very little understanding of neuronal properties or of nonlinear dynamical systems theory, and has essentially no scholarly depth from careful reading and reflection on the technical literature.

--Hillel Chiel (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2017 (EDT)