[Grad2021] [Turnbull Zemi] REMINDER: Zemi, Thursday, May 23

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Hi all

First, please respond to this message when you get it so I know
everybody is getting mail from the list.  Don't read it first; it's
long and detailed.  Just reply.  (Don't reply to the list!)

We will have seminar Thursday, May 23 at 15:15 in 3E401 as usual.

Last week I announced that some students (order chosen randomly) will
each present *one* article that they think is going to be useful or
important for their research.  However, as I prepared for this I
decided the assignment needs to be a lot more formal.  So for
tomorrow, I want to show how I would do such a presentation and
discussion, and talk about modeling.  I haven't prepared yet, so I
will send materials tomorrow (I hope by noon).  Please look for
additional mail tomorrow around noon.

For *next* week (May 30), and a couple of the following weeks, the
presentations will follow these rules.  The time allowed is the same
as the various formal presentations in the Master programs: 12
minutes.  Discussion will be as long as it takes, including both the
assigned discussant (about 4 minutes) and any other comments,
questions, etc.

NOTE: Because the discussant needs some of the material of your
presentation in advance, you MUST send them a copy of *the chosen
paper* by noon, Tuesday, before the presentation.  CC: me as well at
turnbull at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp.

The following points must be covered.  You should use slides.  For
each slide (except the title, which should have the usual format) you
need only a title and a few (2-4) bullet points.

The first four should be presented *orally*, without reference to
slides.  You should have a title slide with the usual information on
it (for the paper chosen, plus yourself as presenter).  This slide
will be displayed while you present points 1-4.

1.  Introduce yourself (name, student ID, program, year) as usual.
2.  Author(s) of the paper, their affiliations (where they work or
    study), and their rank (as faculty, research staff, or students).
3.  Title of the research, date (year and if available month) is
    sufficient, and source (journal, book, or the nature of the
    website: personal blog, departmental working papers, third-party
    archive such as RePEC, Research Gate, or ArXiv).  Full URL or
    publication data should be presented on-screen, but orally you
    should explain in these general terms.
4.  State what is (to you) the (most important of the) main result(s)
    in the paper.  Just one, please.  Explain why it is important to
    you.

Each of the following should have one slide each.

5.  Describe the methods used to perform the research: the theory
    framework, and the data and statistical tools (if empirical).
6.  Describe the important results achieved in the paper, and explain
    why they are novel (that is, how they are better than previous
    results).
7.  Summarize any applications to policy or scientific methodology
    that the authors present.

The last point may or may not have a slide.

8.  Describe how your own research is related to, and improves on,
    this paper.

Each presentation has an *assigned discussant*.  Of course all
students should listen carefully to every presentation and make
comments or ask questions about it.  I am watching and counting!  But
you don't need to comment on every presentation, as long as the
comments you make indicate *active* listening and participation.

The assigned discussant *must* comment.  The discussion should take
about 4 minutes.  You don't need slides.  The following points must be
covered:

1.  Before seeing the presentation, read the *abstract* (only!) of the
    paper.  (If there is no abstract, read the introductory section.)
    State what *you* think is the most important or interesting
    result.  ("It's all boring" is not acceptable!  Pick one.)
2.  Also based on the abstract, describe the methods used to perform
    the research: the theory framework, and the data and statistical
    tools (if empirical).  If the abstract is insufficient, say so.
3.  Compare your choice of "most important" with the presenter's.  Did
    you choose the same result?  If yes, did you have the same reason?
    Explain.  If no, did you find the presenter's reason for their
    choice persuasive?  Explain.
4.  Did you find the presenter's description of the methods useful?
    If there is additional information a reader would want to know
    about the paper's methods, say so.
5.  Any other comments you have about the presentation.

Here are the discussant assignments.  (The list is sorted by whatever
Unicode sorts.  Do not draw any conclusions about the order of
presentation.)

Presenter            Discussant <email address>
Fatema Abdulrasool   严熙杰 <yanxijie19951027 at hotmail.com>
严熙杰               葉鵬飛 <yohouhi at sina.com>
張子雲               胡沁羽 <turumi_hoo at yahoo.co.jp>
王晓飞               鈴木康介 <s1820462 at s.tsukuba.ac.jp>
胡沁羽               Fatema Abdulrasool <fabdulrasool.85 at gmail.com>
葉鵬飛               張子雲 <k1407m21 at kcp.ac.jp>
蔣颖                 黄一辰 <13071178524 at 163.com>
鈴木康介             蔣颖 <jiangyingpvg at 163.com>
陸アンキ             王晓飞 <wangxf108 at gmail.com>
黄一辰               陸アンキ <rikuanki at gmail.com>

Steve

-- 
Associate Professor              Division of Policy and Planning Science
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/     Faculty of Systems and Information
Email: turnbull at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp                   University of Tsukuba
Tel: 029-853-5175                 Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN