Course talk:CPSC522/Affect Prediction using Eye Gaze

Probably worth defining "affect" (expression of emotion?) right at the start, or just link "Affect" to a relevant wikipedia page.

Typo in builds on "phycology"

Good use of references/linked articles. You can get a direct wiki link with the [[Course:CPSC522/Some_Page|some text]] notation, to differentiate what's student written vs external.

"(Figure something)"s - remember to change these haha

A saccade is just a rapid eye movement from one spot to another, it's not a measure of the distance between these points: "Another feature specific to the eye tracking domain is called a saccade, or in other words the distance from...". Should distinguish the feature (length) from the action.

Typo on saccades "measure" should be measured, "Fore"->"For", "to go the"->"to go to the", "I"->"In"

Feature "section" (selection)

There's a few other typos etc, basically it needs a proof-read but it's otherwise well written.

Apparently we're supposed to format these like reviews on a couple of papers, I've done the same thing as you but it's probably worth changing things around.

Generally this is pretty solid but it's a practical topic where they did studies, so I think it'd be good to see some results summarized on the page. You could then show e.g. the effective difference between feature fusion and single feature (?) analyses.

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "strongly disagree" and 5 means "strongly agree" please rate and comment on the following:

• The topic is relevant for the course. 5
• The writing is clear and the English is good. 4
• The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 4
• The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 5
• The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 4
• There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 2
• There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. NA
• It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 3
• It is correct. 4
• It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 3 (looks like you're adding more)
• It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
• It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5
• The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
• I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 4
• This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 2 (I think the format is wrong)

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 16

Should highlight what are the two main papers and their contributions. It is not clear what is the relation between algorithm and model sections. Do they have empirical results?

   The topic is relevant for the course. 5
   The writing is clear and the English is good. 5
   The page is written at an appropriate level for CPSC 522 students (where the students have diverse backgrounds). 5
   The formalism (definitions, mathematics) was well chosen to make the page easier to understand. 4
   The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 5
   There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 5
   There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. N/A
   It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 5
   It is correct. 5
   It was neither too short nor too long for the topic. 5
   It was an appropriate unit for a page (it shouldn't be split into different topics or merged with another page). 5
   It links to appropriate other pages in the wiki. 5
   The references and links to external pages are well chosen. 5
   I would recommend this page to someone who wanted to find out about the topic. 3
   This page should be highlighted as an exemplary page for others to emulate. 3

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 17