Peer Assessment of Group 2
Peer Assessment of Group 2 - Project 2
| Category |
Group 1 |
Group 3 |
Group 4 |
Group 5 |
Average |
| Context Definition and Selection
(0-15) |
10 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
12.25 |
| Problem Definition and Selection
(0-15) |
13 |
10 |
13 |
12 |
12 |
| Choice of Methodology (0-15) |
12 |
10 |
12 |
12 |
11.5 |
| Scope of Project (0-15) |
12 |
10 |
12 |
13 |
11.75 |
| Interpretation (0-15) |
12 |
9 |
12 |
13.5 |
11.6 |
| Facilities and Feasibility (0-5) |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4.5 |
| Timeline (0-5) |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4.5 |
| Pros & Cons: The Verdict (0-15) |
12 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
12 |
| TOTAL |
81 |
76 |
82 |
87 |
81.5 |
Evaluation by Group 1
From: "Graeme Day"
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:29:10 -0500
To: [email protected]
Subject: Group 1 evaluation of Group 2
Mime-Version: 1.0
(A) Evaluating Unit: Group 1 - The Focking Computational Chemists
(B) Evaluated Unit: Group 2 - Nitrosamine
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Context Definition and Selection: 10 Points (0-15)
This is an interesting problem to study and computational methods seem
warranted. However, the last sentence of the introduction is slightly
disturbing ("Once the calculation results are consistent with our
mechanism...")
If the results of the calculations don't fit with the mechanism proposed,
this should be explained.
(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 13 Points (0-15)
The goal of the proposal is defined well and the modelling of the real
system by use of simplified 'mimic' molecules is necessary.
(3) Choice of Methodology: 12 Points (0-15)
The use of a cheaper method for geometry optimizations and the higher
level of theory for energetics seems well thought out. However, I might be
tempted to use a better basis set than 3-21G for the geometries. Moving up
to a 6-21G or 6-31G (and probably adding polarization functions on the
heavy atoms) would be worth the extra computational expense.
(4) Scope of Project: 12 Points (0-15)
The key structures to be studied seem to be identified and included in the
proposal.
(5) Interpretation: 12 Points (0-15)
It seems as if you know what you are looking for from this study.
You might want to look at some other aspects of the structures other than
energies. Studying the geometries and charge distribution on the
transition states could be important in understanding the reactions in
greater depth.
(6) Facilities & Feasibility: 5 Points (0-5)
(7) Timeline: 5 Points (0-5)
Good work in trying a test case to estimate the time needed.
(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. 12 Points (0-15)
Total: 81
Evaluation by Group 3
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 20:57:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Bruce Flint
X-Sender: [email protected]
To: "Dr. Glaser"
Subject: Peer evaluation of Group 2 by Group 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
3 Hueckelberries
2 nitrosamine
1. Context 12
Mechanism was a little hard to follow, but was made clearer in the
presnetation.
2. Problem Def. and Selec. 13
How do you explain that b is dominant?
3. Choice of Meth. 10
Why RHF instead of UHF?
4. Scope 10
It is not very clear what we hope to learn beyond the scope of
simply which pathway is preferred.
5. Interpretation 9
Where is your interpretation section? What are your thoughts about
how the data relates to reality?
6. Fac. and Feas. 5
7. Timeline 5
8. Pros and cons.
We didn't find this proposal particularly exciting or novel. The
presentation was good. 11
Total: 76
Bruce Flint
237 Chemistry Bldg.
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO 65211
*************************************************
I like my Y chromosome!
*************************************************
Evaluation by Group 4
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:45:24 -0500 (CDT)
From: shao lixin
X-Sender: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Peer evaluation of group 2 by group 4
MIME-Version: 1.0
(A) Group4: The Hamiltonophiles
(B) Group2: Nitrosamine
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Context Definition and Selection: 13 Points (0-15)
The general problem is defined clearly and the topic is interesting.
(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 13 Points (0-15)
(3) Choice of Methodology: 12 Points (0-15)
The methodology is appropriate for the problem.
(4) Scope of Project: 12 Points (0-15)
(5) Interpretation: 12 Points (0-15)
(6) Facilities & Feasibility: 4 Points (0-5)
(7) Timeline: 4 Points (0-5)
(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. 12 Points (0-15)
Evaluation by Group 5
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:52:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Emky: Chaser of Dragons"
X-Sender: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Peer evaluation of group 2 by group 5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Section 1: 14/15
Section 2: 12/15
Basis set seemed inappropriate. Polarisation functions are nessicary in
such a system.
Section 3: 12/15
Good method, but what about errors and limitations?
Section 4: 13/15
Section 5: 13.5/15
Good use of graphs to explain expected results.
Section 6: 4/5
Section 7: 4.5/5
Section 8: 13/15
Total: 87 /100