Presentation on theme: "SDM Student Paper Competition"— Presentation transcript:
1 SDM Student Paper Competition SciTech 2015SDM Student Paper CompetitionUpdate to Structures Technical CommitteeDawn Phillips (Student Paper Chair)September 11, 2014
2 SDM Student Paper Competition For those who don’t know.....Five awards:Jefferson GobletStructures - LockheedStructures - HiltonCompositesNDA (new this year!!)Preceding years procedure:All accepted student final manuscripts collected, distributed, judged within 7 days (±) after manuscript deadline closedFinalists required to present papers twice:Regular technical session“Judging” session on Sunday night or Tuesday nightSunday night presented travel difficultiesTuesday night meant some students had already presented their paper once, some hadn’tApproximately 6 finalists selected for 4 awards
3 New Procedure For SciTech 2015 Big task! – make sure presentations are judged in their regular sessions at SciTech!Solution – have three rounds of judging:Semi-finalists selected based on extended abstracts (three judges per abstract)Finalists selected based on final manuscriptsWinners selected based on manuscript scores and at-conference presentationsBig change #1 – semi-final round changed sessioning work load on TC RepsSolicited feedback from organizing committee, worked with John K. (SDM Technical Chair) to develop scheduleStudent manuscripts required to be submitted one month earlier than regular conference deadline (ScholarOne will be locked at 5:01pm EST on November 3, 2014)Big change #2 – judges have more time and fewer manuscripts to read
4 Student Presentations Two options – final choice depended on decision about awards presentationAwards presented at SDM awards lunch on Thursday – judge in Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday sessionsAwards presented at special ceremony (or welcome reception) on Tuesday evening – judge all finalists in two special sessions on Monday (still requires students to present twice, but circumstances different)Big change #3 – more finalists can be selected, bigger pool of papersPlanning to select 15 finalists for 5 awardsWorked with John K. to persuade AIAA to give student awards at SDM awards lunch (decision finally made on July 1)Big change #4 – student presentations will be judged in their regular technical sessions among their peersBig change #5 – student winners will be given complimentary tickets to the awards lunch (bonus!)
5 This many to session/judge without semi-final round. Abstract Statistics91 student abstracts submitted – semi-final judging concurrent with abstract reviewsCut-off score of 75Pretty even scoring across TCsSelectively stretched cut-off to 70 to include SUR and extra papers from STR and NDARoughly half from each TC selected as semi-finalists (none that were rejected by normal review process)Judges’ recommendations for special awards really helpedTCJudgesAbstracts SubmittedAbstracts Accepted% AcceptedSemi-Finalists% of Submitted% of AcceptedASC71011110%550%45%DE2100%1MAT8181689%39%44%MDO982%655%67%NDASCS333%SD2090%STR1759%SUR4Total918695%4752%Pretty Close!This many to session/judge without semi-final round.This many instead!
6 Conference Sessions Sessioning worked beautifully! ALL 47 student semi-finalists were placed in Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday sessionsEntire conference program delivered to me to deconflict student papersContacted each TC Rep with individual requests to move papers (the response was awesome!)Managed to get no more than two student papers overlapping at a timeNot very many occurrencesUsed abstract scores as predictor to which abstracts will likely be finalists (NO instances where highest scoring abstracts overlap each other)Thought is that none of the 15 finalists will overlap. If they do, judges will only need to divide & conquer into two groups
7 Desire is to effect positive and lasting change to the competition. Remaining TasksFinalist selection:All dates selected to work around holiday schedules!Manuscript judging (47 manuscripts) for finalist selection – November 3-14, 2014Will use 4-5 judges per paper – opportunity for cross-TC judgingFinalists notified n.l.t. December 8, 2014Finalists’ manuscript scores will be combined with presentation scores for winner selectionAt-conference presentation judging:Presentation judges will have to hop rooms!Will be a big job – need people who can dedicate to the taskDon’t want conflicts with session chairs or presentation of own papersLikely have two types of judges:Core group of judges who can hit all 15 papersExtra judges who can tag-team accompanying the core group for a few papersWill want special STR and NDA representation since they have special awardsSo far, so good.Desire is to effect positive and lasting change to the competition.
10 Abstract Judging Criteria CriterionJudge’s ScoreWeightWeighted ScoreOriginality(max 10 pts)1.7517.5Technical Content and Quality3.535Relevance of Contribution1.010Organization and ClarityPotential to be a Good Paper2.020Total50--100
11 Manuscript Judging Criteria Plan to use same as previous years:Option: use 15-pt scale for wider/clearer spread of scores?CriterionJudge’s ScoreWeightWeighted ScoreOriginality(max 10 pts)2.525Technical Content and Quality3.535Relevance of Contribution1.515Organization and ClarityTotal40--100
12 Presentation Judging Criteria Plan to use same as previous years:CriterionMax PossibleINTRODUCTIONThe research question/hypothesis was clearly statedThe goals and specific objectives were presentedThe project had sufficient, supporting background20METHODS & RESULTSThe methods were clearly outlined/explainedThe presenter acknowledged limitations to the studyThe results were clearly explained and significant results were highlightedCONCLUSIONSA review/summary of the project was presentedThe significance of the results was discussedThe applicability of the results was discussedPRESENTATION STYLEPresentation aids were clear and readablePresentation was well-structured and logicalPresentation fit into the allotted timeThe student seemed knowledgeableThe student exhibited appropriate voice projection, eye contact, confidence, and reliance on notesThe student responded well to questions from the audience40Total100
13 Comparison to Previous Years TC201220132014*2015UploadedAcceptedTo JudgeASC7121115DE32MAT15416MDO1769NDASCS (GSF)SD311318STR1410SURWind Energy--Total9996418647Finalists6†* First year of transition to SciTech† Additional STR finalists identified and judged separately
14 Observations Some (not much, but some) confusion over new procedure Casualty of doing semi-final judging at same time as abstract reviewsNew ideas take time to catch on...The “pat on the back”: Structures TC incredibly responsive and cooperativeProactive about asking questions and getting clarificationRecruited judges when requestedJudges followed instructions