MATH 516: Applied Statistics

This page contains a detailed description of the grading criteria that will be applied to the submitted projects and the oral examination.

CRITERIA	OUTSTANDING	VERY STRONG	STRONG	SATISFACTORY	DEVELOPING	WEAK	INADEQUATE
Clarity and Structure	Exceptionally well-organized, with clear flow and logical structure throughout.	Very well-organized with only minor issues in flow or clarity.	Generally clear and well-structured; minor improvements could enhance readability.	Adequately organized but with some awkward transitions or unclear sections.	Structure is inconsistent; several sections lack clarity.	Poorly organized with significant structural or logical gaps.	Lacks structure or coherence; difficult to follow.
Statistical Rigour and Relevance	Comprehensive and rigorous analysis using appropriate and justified methods.	Very thorough analysis with strong justification of methods used.	Solid analytical approach with minor lapses in justification or depth.	Analysis is adequate but lacks depth or critical evaluation.	Basic analysis with limited justification or engagement with assumptions.	Weak analytical approach; inappropriate or poorly explained methods.	No meaningful analysis; inappropriate methods or absent justification.
Correctness of Statistical Methodology	Statistical methods implemented flawlessly, with precise assumptions and correct interpretation.	Minor issues present, but implementation and interpretation are nearly flawless.	Correct use of statistical methods with occasional small errors or ambiguity.	Acceptable use of statistical methods but some key issues or misunderstandings.	Misunderstandings of assumptins of the methods or inconsistent implementation.	Major conceptual errors or incorrect application of statistical methods.	Incorrect or missing application of statistical methodology.
Communication of Results	Exceptional clarity in presenting and interpreting results, with excellent use of visualisations.	Clear and effective communication of findings, with well-chosen visual aids.	Mostly clear presentation; some visualisations could be improved.	Results communicated with basic clarity but limited interpretative depth.	Presentation is difficult to follow or lacks effective visual representation.	Findings are poorly explained or interpreted.	Results are not communicated clearly or not at all.
Discussion	Exceptional critical reflection; provides deep insights into main findings, thoroughly evaluates complex limitations, and proposes innovative generalisations or future work.	Very thorough summary and reflection; clearly identifies findings and provides a strong, well-justified analysis of limitations and potential extensions.	Solid discussion of results; effectively summarises main findings and provides a clear, though perhaps less exhaustive, evaluation of limitations and future work.	Adequately summarises findings but lacks depth in critical evaluation; mentions basic limitations and standard future directions.	Basic summary of results with limited reflection; identifies few limitations and provides only generic suggestions for future work.	Poorly explained results with little to no critical reflection; significant gaps in identifying limitations or the broader context of the work.	Fails to provide a meaningful discussion; no analysis of limitations or future directions provided.
Referencing	Flawless referencing using a scientific and consistent style; bibliography is comprehensive and includes all key literature relevant to the field.	Very high-quality referencing with only minor, negligible formatting issues; all sources are correctly cited and well-integrated.	Correct use of referencing with occasional small errors in formatting or minor omissions in the bibliography.	Bibliography is acceptable and covers primary sources, but may have inconsistent formatting or some missing in-text citations.	Inconsistent or incomplete referencing; several key sources are missing from the bibliography or incorrectly cited in the text.	Major errors in referencing; bibliography is poorly structured, and many claims lack necessary citations.	Referencing is entirely absent or severely inadequate,.
Originality	Innovative approach; goes beyond standard methods or expectations with clear creativity.	Demonstrates original thought; integrates unique ideas or perspectives effectively.	Some original contributions; occasional creative solutions or extensions.	Shows effort to personalize or extend ideas but remains mostly conventional.	Limited originality; mostly relies on standard approaches.	Minimal evidence of original thinking or novel application.	Entirely derivative; no original contribution.
Quality of plots and tables	Exceptional visual clarity; plots are informative, well-labeled, and enhance understanding.	High-quality plots with clear labels, titles, and relevance to the analysis.	Plots are accurate and mostly clear; minor improvements needed in formatting or clarity.	Adequate plots; some unclear labels or formatting issues.	Plots included but inconsistently formatted or partially unclear.	Poor quality plots; difficult to interpret or lacking key labels.	Plots missing, incorrect, or irrelevant.
Writing Quality	Fluent, polished academic writing with no grammatical errors.	Well-written and mostly error-free; tone and style are appropriate.	Generally clear writing with occasional minor errors.	Understandable but with frequent stylistic or grammatical issues.	Writing lacks clarity and contains multiple errors.	Significant issues with grammar, spelling, or tone.	Writing is unclear, error-ridden, or unprofessional.
Length and quantity of materials presented	Well-balanced length; extensive yet concise materials that enhance clarity and depth.	Slightly longer or shorter than ideal, but overall well-justified and effective.	Sufficient quantity; minor imbalance in length or depth.	Meets basic expectations for quantity but lacks efficiency or depth.	Some gaps in material or excessive redundancy.	Significant under- or overproduction of content; lacks purpose.	Material is missing or overwhelming with no added value.
Improvements on ChatGPT Code (if applicable)	Code significantly improved with thoughtful optimization and clear enhancements.	Notable improvements made, with clear rationale and better functionality.	Improvements evident, though some changes may be superficial.	Some effort to improve, but limited impact or unclear reasoning.	Minimal changes; unclear if improvements were made.	Code copied with minor edits and no clear enhancement.	ChatGPT code used without modification or with detrimental changes.
Reproducibility and Code Quality	Fully reproducible with clean, well-documented, modular code.	Reproducible with mostly clean and documented code.	Code runs with minor issues; mostly readable and somewhat documented.	Code runs but lacks documentation or clarity in structure.	Reproducibility is limited; poor documentation or disorganized code.	Code is difficult to interpret or partially functional.	Code is missing, broken, or not reproducible at all.
Oral examination	Demonstrates an exceptional mastery of all projects; provides a flawless summary of findings and approach. Technical questions are answered with absolute precision, showing deep critical appreciation and the ability to handle complex conceptual ideas.	Very thorough understanding of the material; summaries are clear, well-structured, and accurate. Responds to technical inquiries with high precision, demonstrating a strong grasp of the methodology and the implications of the results.	Solid technical knowledge; effectively summarizes the project purpose and approach. Answers to technical questions are mostly clear and relevant, though they may lack the absolute depth of an outstanding performance.	Adequate summary of the work done; shows a functional understanding of the methodology. Answers to technical questions are generally correct but may be vague, lack conciseness, or show minor conceptual misunderstandings.	Basic or inconsistent understanding; the summary of the work is fragmented. The student struggles to justify specific methodological choices or provides incomplete answers to technical questions.	Poorly articulated project goals and methods; demonstrates significant gaps in technical mastery. Responses to questions are frequently incorrect or fail to address the core mathematical issues.	Fails to provide a coherent summary or demonstrate any meaningful understanding of the project. The student is unable to answer technical questions or explain the conclusions of the work.