CS代考程序代写 Excel case study Computational Contracts
Computational Contracts
Predictive Analytics
Individual Coursework
Examples and indicative marks
MSIN0097
1
plan
Visualizations
Narrative
Methodology
Code
dataset
3
Appropriate visualization
Comment:
Poor visualization for a discrete variable. Confusing.
Indicative mark: 4/10
Rubric:
Incoherent appearance / layout. This is usable in only a very few places, and there are a considerable number of errors and inconsistencies.
4
Appropriate visualization
Comment:
Poor visualization for a discrete variable. Confusing, percentages and legend is not interpretable. No title.
Indicative mark: 4/10
Rubric:
Incoherent appearance / layout. This is usable in only a very few places, and there are a considerable number of errors and inconsistencies.
5
Appropriate visualization
Comment: Poor visualization given the labels on the x axis are so long; hard to see the point because of the hectic labels.
Indicative mark: 4/10
Rubric: Incoherent appearance / layout. This is usable in only a very few places, and there are a considerable number of errors and inconsistencies.
6
Appropriate visualization
Comment: Poor visualization for this type of variable – bar chart would make more sense. Lacks title and description of the y axis.
Indicative mark: 5/10
Rubric: The report generally has a clear structure, although it would benefit from further development. Some errors and inconsistencies.
7
details
Comment: Using multiple colors makes this chart harder to interpret. Try to use different colors when it helps the reader extract more information.
Indicative mark: 6/10
Rubric: Generally well-structured and solid in appearance and usability. Some minor errors and inconsistencies in places.
details
Comment: The legend should have been removed.
Indicative mark: 6/10
Rubric: Generally well-structured and solid in appearance and usability. Some minor errors and inconsistencies in places.
details
Comment: Use of multiple colors not relevant, title and axis descriptions are missing.
Indicative mark: 3/10
Rubric: Incoherent appearance / layout. This is usable in only a very few places, and there are a considerable number of errors and inconsistencies.
weekdays
Comment: The chart lacks title and weekdays should be sorted.
Indicative mark: 5/10
Rubric: The report generally has a clear structure, although it would benefit from further development. Some errors and inconsistencies.
weekdays
Comment: Counterintuitive labels on x axis.
Indicative mark: 5/10
Rubric: The report generally has a clear structure, although it would benefit from further development. Some errors and inconsistencies.
weekday
Comment: Well and logically presented at the basic level.
Indicative mark: 7/10
Rubric: Good solid work. Demonstrates effort to provide a usable document. Meets all of the criteria at the basic level.
weekday
Comment: Well and logically presented at the basic level.
Indicative mark: 7/10
Rubric: Good solid work. Demonstrates effort to provide a usable document. Meets all of the criteria at the basic level.
Gender
Comment: Poor visualization, hard to seen any difference, could be improved by using a different type of chart. This kind of narrative does not meet the basic requirements of the assignment.
Indicative mark: 4/10
Rubric: Incoherent appearance / layout. This is usable in only a very few places, and there are a considerable number of errors and inconsistencies.
Gender
Comment: Poor visualization, hard to seen any difference, scale should be adjusted.
Indicative mark: 4/10
Rubric: Incoherent appearance / layout. This is usable in only a very few places, and there are a considerable number of errors and inconsistencies.
Gender
Comment: Well and logically presented.
Indicative mark: 7/10
Rubric: Good solid work. Demonstrates effort to provide a usable document. Meets all of the criteria at the basic level.
Gender
Comment: Well and logically presented. Includes slice labels and labelling percentage.
Indicative mark: 8/10
Rubric: Professionally presented and well laid out. Meets all of the criteria at an advanced level.
Different angle
Comment: Poor visualization, does not show anything useful.
Indicative mark: 4/10
Rubric: Incoherent appearance / layout. This is usable in only a very few places, and there are a considerable number of errors and inconsistencies.
Different angle
Comment: Interesting visualization, showing lots of information although would benefit from using distinct colors and binning some categories to make it clear, as well as adjusting the scale.
Indicative mark: 5/10
Rubric: The report generally has a clear structure, although it would benefit from further development. Some errors and inconsistencies.
different angle
Comment: Very good use of color, clearly emphasizes the point.
Indicative mark: 7/10
Rubric: Good solid work. Demonstrates effort to provide a usable document. Meets all of the criteria at the basic level.
different angle
Comment: Very interesting way to show missing values, nicely presented, demonstrates effort, would benefit from removing the legend.
Indicative mark: 7/10
Rubric: Good solid work. Demonstrates effort to provide a usable document. Meets all of the criteria at the basic level.
different angle
Comment: Well and logically presented, from an interesting angle with insightful narrative.
Indicative mark: 9/10
Rubric: Excellent work which demonstrates original thought and effort. The presentation enables communications well.
narrative
Comment: These comments are not relevant, therefore should not be included. The word limit for all 3 parts of the assignment is set at around 2000 words, such narratives are reducing the quality of the submission.
Indicative mark: 1/10
Rubric: It appears that it may have been misunderstood what was required. The points are either copied from the case with no analysis or not clearly related to the events in the case.
24
narrative
Comment: This narrative duplicates the information that shown in the visualization and does not include any insight nor reasoning, which are the key.
Indicative mark: 2/10
Rubric: Significant errors / omissions / unclear points. Much more work is needed to develop and support assertions.
25
narrative
Comment: Very little insight is presented, reasoning is missing.
Indicative mark: 5/10
Rubric: Arguments are generally along the right lines but a little weak in places. Scope to increase depth and breadth of analysis in many instances. Quite a few key points missed.
26
narrative
Comment: No reasoning included, although all other requirements are satisfied. This narrative puts the visualization in context of the case study and is very relevant to the point of the assignment.
Indicative mark: 6/10
Rubric: A solid analysis which covers many of the key issues, although scope for further analysis in some places. A few key points missed.
27
Defining the problem
Comment: Unique and well-thought approach, not only explained but also presented with a figure.
Indicative mark: 8/10
Rubric: Very good points, with well-supported arguments which relate clearly to events in the case study.
28
Methodology
Comment: Logically presented, well reasoned, but lacking depth.
Indicative mark: 7/10
Rubric: Points are generally relevant. But could go further in identifying the breadth of issues raised by the case. Overall good, solid work. Meets the requirements of the assessment.
Methodology
Comment: Important issue has been identified, handled, and explained.
Indicative mark: 8/10
Rubric: Very good identification of the key issues in the case. Meets the requirements at an advanced level.
Methodology
Comment: Going an extra mile in understanding the problem, demonstrates preparation to tackle the problem. Use of LaTeX to write an equation is appreciated.
Indicative mark: 8/10
Rubric: Excellent work. Points are entirely relevant and focus clearly on the issues in the case. Very good identification of the key aspect that exceeds the scope of the basic requirements.
PCA
Comment: Clearly presented explained variance and/or cumulative variance. Any of the above sufficiently illustrates the concept.
Indicative mark: 6/10
Rubric: Generally well-structured and solid in appearance and usability. Some minor errors and inconsistencies in places.
PCA
Comment: Presenting the relationship between the first two components shows understanding of the subject and beneficial for the overall analysis. Would benefit from an insightful comment for the purpose of assessing the narrative.
Indicative mark: 8/10
Rubric: Professionally presented and well laid out. Meets all of the criteria at an advanced level.
33
Code annotation
Comment: Basic code, no comments, not using variables in the appropriate way.
Indicative mark: 4/10
Rubric: Some evidence of additional sources, although not all are very robust
Code annotation
Comment: Nice code, with basic comments.
Indicative mark: 6/10
Rubric: Good sources in places but use of quality sources could be extended.
Code annotation
Comment: Nice code, comments enable reader to easily understand the code.
Indicative mark: 8/10
Rubric: Very good work with relevant and robust sources. Very good referencing and documentation of code.
36
code
Comment: Using a built-in function’s name as a variable will make it difficult to use the function later in the notebook and is generally frowned upon.
Indicative mark: 1/10
Rubric: Very little or no evidence of use of sources beyond the course materials
code
Comment: Leaving errors shows lack of understanding of the key concepts of coding and lack of problem-solving attitude which is crucial for a successful analysis.
Indicative mark: 1/10
Rubric: Very little or no evidence of use of sources beyond the course materials
code
Comment: Using variable names that are meaningful will enable the reader (as well as the author) to understand the code more easily and will reduce the need for comments.
Indicative mark: 3/10
Rubric: Some limited evidence of additional sources, although not very robust ones
code
Comment: Using functions is an important part of coding, so is using relevant comments.
Indicative mark: 7/10
Rubric: Good, solid sources and referencing. In places, the use of code source and documentation could be improved / extended but overall good, solid work.
Thank you
