Strong!! Assignments
| Student | Supervisor | Topic |
|---|---|---|
| Mari Liis Velner | Raul Vicente Zafra | Image classification based on neuronal activity recorded from mice using calcium imaging |
| Teddy Heiser | Meelis Kull | Adjustment of classifiers after the context changes |
| Yevhen Tyshchenko | Kairit Sirts | Collecting a blog dataset for training classifiers for detecting mental health diagnoses |
| Annika Laumets-Tättar | Ezequiel Scott | Predicting Story Points for User Stories |
| Karl-Kristjan Luberg | Amnir Hadachi | Training Convolutional Neural Networks with Class Based Data Augmentation for Detecting Distracted Drivers |
| Tõnis Ojandu | Ezequiel Scott | Mining software repositories and social networks to understand team performance in agile software projects |
| Mari-Liis Allikivi | Meelis Kull | Demonstrating that isotonic calibration is biased and deriving a correction to reduce it |
| Samreen Mahak Hassan | Meelis Kull | Activity Recognition Using Acceleration Sensor Data |
Reviewing tasks
The following table describes which persons you need to review. So find your row and review the persons who are in this row.
| Student | Reviewer 1 | Reviewer 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Samreen Mahak Hassan | Annika Laumets-Tättar | Mari-Liis Allikivi |
| Mari Liis Velner | Karl-Kristjan Luberg | Samreen Mahak Hassan |
| Annika Laumets-Tättar | Samreen Mahak Hassan | Yevhen Tyshchenko |
| Karl-Kristjan Luberg | Mari Liis Velner | Yevhen Tyshchenko |
| Yevhen Tyshchenko | Teddy Heiser | Karl-Kristjan Luberg |
| Teddy Heiser | Mari-Liis Allikivi | Mari Liis Velner |
| Mari-Liis Allikivi | Teddy Heiser | Annika Laumets-Tättar |
Reviewing guidlines
- Review is not a listing of grammar errors
- Review is a listing of logical errors and ideas to pursue further
- It is ok to say in the review that you did not understand certain paragraphs or concepts
- Review should give suggestion in terms of presentation of ideas and layout
- Review should contain a clear opinion about the work you are reviewing
- Still be polite and write the review in the form you would like to receive
First write a short paragraph describing the work as a whole. Write what is good and bad in it and derive your final judgement about the work. Next fill the following reviewing form. This review form contains questions that provide a framework to structure you critical comments into separate blocks. So use those question sections to convey your critical comments about the work. SPage linktrong? A good review mostly discards all grammar mistakes and deals with presentation and content. Try to write something that yourself would find instructive if you were an author. In particular, mark all places which you cannot understand or which seem illogical to you as a reader. For those of you who have not done it before, there is a longer Estonian tutorial how to review. It is a long text and covers different reviewing levels so do not implement all suggestions. Send the final review to me and the person who you are reviewing. If you do not know the mail address of the author send it only to me. I will forward it.
- I will not accept reviews that contains only a listing of grammar errors
- I will not accept reviews that have no clear opinion about the work
- The opinion can be completely wrong or unfair as long as it is justified
Presentations
13. december
- Teddy Heiser
- Mari Liis Velner
- Karl-Kristjan Luberg
- Samreen Hassan
20. december
- Mari-Liis Allikivi
- Annika Laumets-Tätar
- Yevhen Tyshchenko
Progress
| Student | Initial draft | First draft | Reviews | Final report |
|---|