The assessment is a short research report based on a published bioengineering or biomechanics article.
Potential articles are available in the following link, but please seek your own on a subject you find interesting and cross check this with Prof Harwin.
The assignment submission point opens on the 27th November 2023 The submission deadline is on or before 8th January 2024 at noon.
Each person is also expected to give a 2 minute summary of their findings in the class on 6th of December. If you are not able to attend this lecture, then you will need to either do a 2 minute video summary to be posted on blackboard, or arrange an alternative online presentation. No slides, only words.
The report should include a background to put the article in context.
This background should try to assess the statistical importance of the problem. For example the incidence or prevalence of the condition, the uptake of the technology and the costs.
The background should also include a short discussion of the relevant anatomy (less than one page).
For example an article on cochlear implants would include an anatomy of the ear. It would also seek out information about the number of implants performed in different regions of the world, the number of people who might benefit from implants, the costs of the implant.
The report should summarise the key information in the article, and highlight principal findings.
The report
Please use the Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science template. Latex and word (mac and windows) templates can be found at (https://www.springer.com/gp/computer-science/lncs/conference-proceedings-guidelines)
You will need to change the following
Mark weighting
Communication | |
First | Ideas are expressed exceptionally well, the article is easy to read and comprehensible. Clear introduction and conclusions |
2:1 | Good expression of the ideas, the article is sensible but with minor errors |
2:2 | Grammar and spelling mistakes are significant and are detracting from the comprehension of the article |
Third | The article was difficult to understand |
Content | |
First | The paper under review is well analysed and presented. Analysis is convincing and useful. |
2:1 | The paper under review has been understood and key contributions have been identified and discussed. |
2:2 | The assignment is predominantly figures from the paper under review without any coherent explanation. |
Third |
References | |
First | no errors, well formatted, a substantial portion of original literature cited, Most references are published papers, Less than 20% are unreviewed web pages |
2:1 | minor formatting errors, some good original references. Occasional reference missing data, e.g. dates |
2:2 | major formatting errors, mostly non original sources and urls |
Third |
Formatting | |
First | Following the Springer template. Formatting to a high standard |
2:1 | |
2:2 | |
Third | Not following the Springer template. Formatting has numerous errors |
W.S.Harwin
14-11-2023