Peer Assessment of Group 1
Peer Assessment of Group 1 - Project 2
| Category |
Group 2 |
Group 3 |
Group 4 |
Group 5 |
Average |
| Context Definition and Selection
(0-15) |
13 |
15 |
13 |
14 |
13.75 |
| Problem Definition and Selection
(0-15) |
11 |
14 |
13 |
13 |
12.75 |
| Choice of Methodology (0-15) |
14 |
15 |
12 |
13 |
13.5 |
| Scope of Project (0-15) |
12 |
13 |
13 |
13 |
12.75 |
| Interpretation (0-15) |
13 |
14 |
14 |
13 |
13.5 |
| Facilities and Feasibility (0-5) |
4 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4.25 |
| Timeline (0-5) |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4.5 |
| Pros & Cons: The Verdict (0-15) |
13 |
14 |
14 |
14 |
13.25 |
| TOTAL |
83 |
95 |
88 |
88 |
88.5 |
Evaluation by Group 2
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:50:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: jianzheng shi
To: chemrg@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: peer evaluation of group 1 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 1.The Fock-ing Computational Chemists (Mike & Graeme)
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Context Definition and Selection: 13 Points
(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 11 Points
(3) Choice of Methodology: 14 Points
(4) Scope of Project: 12 Points
(5) Interpretation: 13 Points
(6) Facilities & Feasibility: 4 Points
(7) Timeline: 4 Points
(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. 13 Points
Total 83
Evaluation by Group 3
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:18:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Bruce Flint
X-Sender: c709549@sp2n17.missouri.edu
To: "Dr. Glaser"
Subject: peer evaluation of group 1 by group 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
3 hueckelberries
1 Focking comp. chemists
1. context 15
Excellent topic, interesting and novel
2. Prob. and Def. 14
Explaination of problem was made clearer in the presentation.
Interesting how you isolated it.
3. Choice of meth. 15
Good methodology with limitations addressed.
4. Scope 13
Focused and in depth, but what do you plan to do if the results
tell you that the structure is favored because of "other molecular
structure lattice properties"?
5. Interpretation 14
What if the molecule prefers to be antiparalell?
How would you explain this? Interpretation was well thought out.
6. Fac and Feas. 5
7. Timeline 5
8. pros and cons. 14
good project
Total 95
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 11:29:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Leonid Breydo
X-Sender: c659703@sp2n17.missouri.edu
To: chemrg@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: evaluation on group 1 by group 4
MIME-Version: 1.0
A. Group 4, The Hamitonophiles
B. Group 1, The Fock-ing Computational Chemists
C. 1. 13
Clearly defined and interesting topic.
2. 13
It is a distinct part of a larger problem and can contribute to
its solution.
3. 12
Method looks good though may be somewhat slow for full
optimisation of dimer.
4. 13
Authors seem to understand what they want. This is an analysis of
one case but looks like its enough for beginning.
5. 14
Proposed interpretation looks reasonable.
6. 4
7. 5
Timeline is realistic.
8. 14
Excellent proposal. Subject is the one of general interest.
Total=88
Leonid Breydo
Evaluation by Group 5
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:48:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Emky: Chaser of Dragons"
X-Sender: c651091@sp2n17.missouri.edu
To: chemrg@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: Peer evaluation of group 1 by group 5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Section 1: 14/15
Section 2: 13/15
Section 3: 13/15
Basis function correction good- well explained.
Section 4: 13/15
Section 5: 13/15
Aware of inportant data.
Section 6: 4/5
Section 7: 4/5
Section 8: 14/15
Total: 88/100