Final Project Grading Rubrics¶
This page hosts the grading rubrics for the Spring Semester assignments, i.e., the Final Project: Presentation, Paper, and Supplemental Materials. Please review expectations carefully.
Final Project Presentation¶
| Evaluation Metric | Criteria | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Presentation Structure and Organization | - Clear, logical flow of information (5 points) - Well-defined sections (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References) (5 points) - Effective transitions between sections (5 points) - Meets the 15-minute time requirement (5 points) |
20 |
| Content and Scientific Rigor | - Strong introduction with background/context (5 points) - Clearly explained methods, appropriate for the research (5 points) - Results presented effectively with supporting visuals (5 points) - Thoughtful discussion connecting results to broader implications (5 points) - Accurate and properly cited references (5 points) - Engages with relevant Imageomics and ecological research themes (5 points) |
30 |
| Accessibility and Clarity | - Presentation is understandable to the broader Imageomics community (5 points) - Avoids excessive jargon or explains technical terms well (5 points) - Engaging and clear verbal delivery (5 points) - Well-designed slides with readable text and effective visuals (5 points) |
20 |
| Reflection on Interdisciplinary Impact | - Explains how the work modernizes ecological research methods (10 points) - Explains how ecological research has influenced computational and analytic methods (10 points) |
20 |
| Professionalism and Delivery | - Presenters maintain eye contact, demonstrate preparedness, and communicate clearly (5 points) - Presenters respond to questions effectively and actively engage with the audience (5 points) |
10 |
Total Points Possible = 100
Final Project Report¶
| Category | Criteria | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Cover Page & Submission | Includes a professional cover page with a suggested venue and target audience. The report is submitted to Classroom 50 by TBA. | 5 |
| Introduction | Clearly introduces the research topic, significance, and objectives. Provides a compelling rationale for the study. | 10 |
| Literature Review | Incorporates relevant sources from both analytics and bio/ecology communities. Demonstrates a strong understanding of existing research. | 15 |
| Methodology | Clearly explains research methods, data collection, and analysis techniques. Justifies methodological choices. | 15 |
| Results | Presents findings logically, using appropriate visuals (tables, graphs, figures). Data is clearly interpreted. | 15 |
| Discussion | Analyzes findings in relation to existing literature. Discusses implications, limitations, and future directions. | 15 |
| Conclusion | Summarizes key findings and their significance. Offers clear takeaways and potential applications. | 10 |
| Organization & Clarity | The report is well-structured, logically organized, and free of grammatical errors. | 10 |
| Citations & References | Properly cites academic sources in a consistent format (APA, CSE, IEEE, or other standard style). Uses a balance of sources from analytics and bio/ecology fields. | 5 |
Total Points Possible = 100
Final Paper Supplemental Materials¶
| Evaluation Metric | Criteria | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Data Table | - A comprehensive table listing all data sources related to the project, including those not used in the paper or presentation. - The provided data table template is fully completed. |
10 |
| [Project Planning Table] (TODO: ADD LINK) | - A comprehensive table listing all planned projects/products based on data collected, including those not used in the paper or presentation. - The provided [project planning table template] (TODO: ADD LINK) is fully completed. |
10 |
| Dataset(s) | - At least one dataset (image, audio, or video) created by the group is uploaded to Hugging Face (public or private) with completed dataset card, following the Collaborative Distributed Science Guide guidelines (use the Dataset Card Checklist). | 25 |
| Data Consult | The group meets with Elizabeth before the deadline to ensure all requirements are met. | 5 |
| GitHub Repository for Code | - All code developed for the project is available in a well-organized GitHub repository. - The repository follows best practices for organizing code, data, and models. - Clear documentation is provided, including a README, wiki documentation, and/or instructional videos (use the Code Repo Checklist). |
25 |
| Model(s) | - Includes at least one model card (stored in GitHub or Hugging Face if the model is too large). - Clear documentation is provided, including a README, wiki documentation, and/or instructional videos (use the Code Repo Checklist). |
20 |
| Peer Evaluations | - Every group member submits a peer evaluation form (provided in advance) via email to Diane Boghrat by TBA. - Points are based on the cumulative scores from peer evaluations of each team member's performance. |
5 |
Total Points Possible = 100