Peer Assessment of Group 5
Peer Assessment of Group 5 - Project 2
| Category |
Group 1 |
Group 2 |
Group 3 |
Group 4 |
Average |
| Context Definition and Selection
(0-15) |
13 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
12.25 |
| Problem Definition and Selection
(0-15) |
13 |
10 |
14 |
12 |
12.25 |
| Choice of Methodology (0-15) |
12.5 |
12 |
11 |
12 |
11.9 |
| Scope of Project (0-15) |
12 |
13 |
12 |
12 |
12.25 |
| Interpretation (0-15) |
12 |
14 |
8 |
12 |
11.5 |
| Facilities and Feasibility (0-5) |
4 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
| Timeline (0-5) |
3.5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
| Pros & Cons: The Verdict (0-15) |
12 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
| TOTAL |
82 |
80 |
79 |
92 |
83.25 |
Evaluation by Group 1
From: "Graeme Day"
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 22:30:41 -0500
To: [email protected]
Subject: Group 1 evaluation of Group 5
Mime-Version: 1.0
(A) Evaluating Unit: Group 1 - The Focking Computational Chemists
(B) Evaluated Unit: Group 5 - O-Methylation
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Context Definition and Selection: 13 Points (0-15)
Interesting topic with important consequences in understanding the
chemistry
of these compounds.
(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 13 Points (0-15)
This seems to be a project particularly suited for computational study and
is
well defined.
(3) Choice of Methodology: 12.5 Points (0-15)
It seems like you know what type of method is needed for this problem to
be tackled. The 6-31++G** basis set might be a bit of an overkill. Maybe a
geometry optimisation at a lower level and an energy calculation with this
basis set would be more appropriate.
(4) Scope of Project: 12 Points (0-15)
(5) Interpretation: 12 Points (0-15)
Is there some comparison to experiment that could be done?
(6) Facilities & Feasibility: 4 Points (0-5)
(7) Timeline: 3.5 Points (0-5)
Optimisations with this basis set would take quite a while and the time
allowed for transition state searching is underestimated.
(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. 12 Points (0-15)
Total: 82
Evaluation by Group 2
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:01:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: jianzheng shi
To: [email protected]
Subject: peer evaluation of group 5 by group 2
MIME-Version: 1.0
(A) Unit Number and Unit Name of Evaluating Unit
Group 2 nitrosamine
(B) Unit Number and Unit Name of Evaluated Unit
Group 5: O-Methylation (Emma & Hongbin)
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Context Definition and Selection: 12 Points
(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 10 Points
(3) Choice of Methodology: 12 Points
(4) Scope of Project: 13 Points
(5) Interpretation: 14 Points
(6) Facilities & Feasibility: 3 Points
(7) Timeline: 4 Points
(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. 12 Points
Total 80
Evaluation by Group 3
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:11:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Bruce Flint
X-Sender: [email protected]
To: "Dr. Glaser"
Subject: Peer evaluation of group 5 by group 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
3 Hueckelberries
5 o-methylation
1. Context 12
We are unclear on the major problem. One decomposition reacts
with DNA, the other is a detoxification. What does this mean? What is
detoxification and how does it relate to the elimination of cancer?
2. Problem def and selection 14
Good, interesting problem
3. Choice of meth. 11
Could have used a higher calculation with optimized structure from
a lower basis set.
4. Scope 12
Seems like a pretty general energy study
5. Interpretation 8
We are confused as to how the results would relate to the problem.
If one configureation is preferred, what does that mean? Higher yields?
More DNA cleavage? Less cancer?
6. Fac. and Feas. 5
7. Timeline 5
8. Pros and Cons 12
The presentation cleared some things up. Especially about the
synthesis.
Total 79
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 11:49:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: shao lixin
X-Sender: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Peer evaluation of group 5 by group 4
MIME-Version: 1.0
(A) Group4: The Hamiltonophiles
(B) Group5: O-methylation
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Context Definition and Selection: 12 Points (0-15)
The general problem is defined clearly and the topic is interesting.
(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 12 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)