Complexity Explorer Santa Few Institute

Download Assignment 9.1 Rubric

Download Assignment 9.2 Rubric

---

Assignment 9.1

Question 1.

Does the response identify an online source that contains text?

• 0.   No.
• 1.   Yes.

Question 2.

Does the response contain code or code-like language that could plausibly be read as possibly achieving the scraping task?

• 0.   No code is produced.
• 1.   Some code is produced but it is not plausible that anything like it could possibly achieve the scraping task.
• 2.   Code is produced and it is plausible that something like it could possibly achieve the scraping task.
• 3.   Code is produced and, with some cleaning up or translation, it would likely achieve the scraping task.

Question 3.

Is the explanation of how the code would work helpful?

• 0.   No explanation of how the code would work is given.
• 1.   Some explanation of how the code would work is attempted, but it is not illuminating.
• 2.   An explanation of the how the code would work is given, and it is mostly helpful.
• 3.   An explanation of the how the code would work is given, and it is highly illuminating.

Question 4.

Is the justification of the interestingness, usefulness, or importance of scraping text from the proposed source convincing?

• 0.   No justification of the interestingness, usefulness, or importance of scraping text from the source is given.
• 1.   A justification is attempted, but it does not provide any reasons to believe that the proposed source is interesting, useful, or important.
• 2.   A justification is given, and it provides good reason for belief in the interestingness, usefulness, or importance of the source, even if you do not agree with it.
• 3.   A justification is given, and it provides good reason for belief in the interestingness, usefulness, or importance of the source, even if you do not agree with it, and moreover the justification spells out why these reasons support the use of the proposed source.

---

Assignment 9.2

Question 1.

Does the response identify a positive aspect of either lecture for further development?

• 0.   No.
• 1.   Yes.

Question 2.

Does the response explain why the chosen aspect of the lecture is worth developing in more detail?

• 0.   No aspect of the lecture is identified for further exploration.
• 1.   Some explanation is given for the choice, but it is vague or not connected to any plausible research question.
• 2.   An explanation is given, and there is a plausible link between this explanation and the subsequent research question.
• 3.   An explanation is given, and it is strongly linked with the subsequent research question.

Question 3.

Are the proposed research question(s) well-posed?

• 0.   No research question is proposed.
• 1.   A research question is proposed but is too long or not clearly focused enough.
• 2.   A research question is proposed and is adequate, but there is some vagueness with respect to whether it can actually be investigated.
• 3.   A research question is proposed and is clear that it can be investigated using the methods subsequently proposed.

Question 4.

Are the methods proposed to investigate the research question(s) well-described and plausible?

• 0.   No methods are proposed.
• 1.   Methods are proposed, but their precise nature is only vaguely described.
• 2.   Methods are proposed, and it is mostly clear how one can use these methods in an attempt to answer the research question(s).
• 3.   Methods are proposed, and it is entirely clear how can use these methods in an attempt to answer the research question.