User talk:Uvm2/Benchmark IV: Discussion
In the second sentence of Limitations and Discrepencies, you used 'there' instead of 'their'. Also why did you choose all of the initial values to be 0? I have not read your whole paper but it would be helpful to know what made that a reasonable assumption. If it was mentioned in the beginning a reminder might not be a terrible idea.--Thomas Schlechter (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2017 (EDT)
-You have a typo in your first section, first paragraph, last sentence: "there gaze" should be "their gaze". Also does the word gaze have a specific medical definition? I think in describing eye focus, you could probably use a better word.
-What does an unstable equilibrium point mean in figure 4, that is, that is the biological significance? How does that relate to your hypothesis?
- While I think what you have written under limitations is necessary, I think that is more related to discrepancies. Limitations is more related to how the model is limited in its accuracy to biological data/phenomena. You should explain what about the model in the paper or your model could be improved to better match biological phenomena (maybe different parameters, or more state variables that represent different aspects of the biological hypothesis). These are things you can also talk about in the future work section, and reference papers that have already started making these adjustments. --Tate Keller (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
In the limitations, you mention that didn't have any parameters given to you. It would be interesting to know how you ended up choosing which values to use, even if it was guess and check until the figures matched. Your future work looks good! --Maria Kuznetsov (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
- Benchmark submitted on time?
- Rubric submitted on time?
- How well does the model support the original hypothesis?
- Support for hypothesis and assumptions from other data in the literature?
- Mentioned but could be discussed in greater depth.
- Limitations of results?
- Discussed, but this is combined with a description of discrepancies, which is not the same thing.
- Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
- Relationship to other work in the field?
- Only very briefly discussed; only one reference provided.
- Discussion of future work
- Very briefly discussed, and mainly focused on finishing the replication of the paper.
On the whole, this is a fair first draft of the discussion. Everything that needs to be discussed is at least mentioned, but limitations of the results is a section that should look at the results in comparison to the original biological data, whereas discrepancies is a section to look at differences between the model described in the paper and the results that you obtained as you attempted to replicate the model. Your discussion of the relationship to other work in the field and future work is much too brief, and needs to be supported with many more references.