Course talk:CPSC522/Automation of hypothesis generation and testing in science

The papers discussed in this page are extremely interesting! While I enjoyed reading the paper, I think the abstract in particular could be more concise. The 'Neuro-DISK and automated hypothesis testing in neuroscience' section can use some rewording or a simple flow chart to better explain how neuro-DISK works. The topic is relevant for the course. (3) 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. (5) The abstract is a concise and clear summary. (3) There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. (4) There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. (5) It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). (2) It is correct. (5) It was too short for the topic (i.e., 1 means too long, 3 means about right) (1) 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. (4) 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. (3.5)

If I was grading it out of 20, I would give it: 17.5

Interesting topic! I was not aware of these technologies. I found the article quite wordy for the information being presented, I'd recommend writing shorter sentences to make it more readable. I also drew little information from the 2nd and 3rd figures. Maybe adding some result graphics could be more informative.

out of 5 The topic is relevant for the course. 3.5 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. 5 The abstract is a concise and clear summary. 2 There were appropriate (original) examples that helped make the topic clear. 4 There was appropriate use of (pseudo-) code. - It had a good coverage of representations, semantics, inference and learning (as appropriate for the topic). 2 It is correct. 5 It was too short for the topic (i.e., 1 means too long, 3 means about right) 2 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. 3.5 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