a guest Oct 21st, 2019 93 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. Review for team fdffc6547a5c805a9e4a48c0598ceba4            
  2. Legend:    
  3.   + Positive    
  4.   ~ Neutral    
  5.   - Negative    
  7. Given a scale with quarter points I would award:
  8.   Textual description: 5.75 / 6
  9.   Code quality:     6 / 6
  10.   Results:         5 / 6
  12. The grades given are based on the comments below. The negative and positive points are comments about either something lacking or which impressed me. A lack of comment on something is indicative that I considered it good or reasonably good.
  14. Overall comments:
  15.   + Usage of pickle is well done
  16.   + The commenting of functions created is extremely well done, giving an overall description of the function and then comments on more complicated lines of the function.
  17.   + The code is always very easy to follow and quite well written
  18.   - A few errors lead to some incorrect results which propagate.
  21. Comments per section:
  23. Section A:
  25. A1:
  26.   + Clear textual description
  27.   + Complete comments
  28.   - The column names have not been renamed to the requested format.
  29.   - Using ‘cvpr’ as index_col removes it from the list, leading to a conference being forgotten and a lower number of total papers.
  31. A2:
  32.   + Great use of eval function. Simplifies the code itself and the reading of it.
  33.   - Using explode would have simplified creating the author-centric paper, doing the whole ‘author df’ function in a line of code.
  34.   + Good comments on the author df function.
  36. A3.1:
  37.   - The plot gives the impression that the only outlier is Sheila A. McIlraith due to how the x labels are shown, though the second graph remedies to this.
  38.   - Bar graph or scatter plot would make it easier to see the actual number of papers published in the top 20 authors.
  39.   - Good use of double grouping to make it easier to see what is happening in one go.
  40.   - Really good textual description for this part.
  42. A3.2:
  43.   - There is no plot of the papers per year before cleaning the year column.
  45. A3.3, A3.4, A4
  46.   + Clear and concise.
  47.   + The textual description is complete.
  49. Section B:
  51. B1
  52.   + Analysis gets the most important points but perhaps could be extended.
  54. B2.1
  55.   + Good checks on the aminer_ai table.
  57. B2.2
  58.   ~ Perhaps use a bar graph for more readability rather than a long list.
  60. B2.3
  61.   - Not completely clear which list is the one for those absent in the H5 ranking, perhaps a bit more textual description or printing the full list would make it more readable.
  63. B2.4
  64.   + Based on the observed results (cvpr conference missing) the analysis is reasonable.
  66. B2.5
  67.   - A rotation of 90 on the x labels make them hard to read.
  68.   - The difference between both graphs with the title ‘Sum of the rank drop of the top20 per conference removed’ is unclear.
  69.   - Unconvincing analysis: ‘If an author publishes only in one conference and that conference disappears, then his rank will drop greatly.’ If I understood what’s being said, then this is a bit too self-evident.
  71. B3
  72.   + Very interesting analysis found.
  73.   ~ Could talk about potential issues with the new scoring method. The analysis is interesting but lacks critique.
  75. Section C:
  77. C
  78.   + The analysis is complete.
  79.   + The textual description is well done.
RAW Paste Data
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!