Poster Evaluation
General Process
- Let N be the number of posters.
(If FLAIRS introduces "abstract only" posters, they will not be
contenders for best poster.)
- Have 4 judges, selected by the program chairs before the conference.
The judges should have different areas of expertise -
senior researchers with broad knowledge of AI are desirable judges.
Their identities must be kept anonymous, known only to the program
chairs and the other judges.
- Make an initial division of the posters into 4 groups of N/4 posters,
optimally grouped by the judges' areas of expertise.
Each group is assigned to a judge.
This should be done collaboratively by the judges before the poster
session (before the conference would be best).
- Each judge makes makes an initial assessment of the N/4 posters in
his/her group, deciding which are potential finalists (see below).
This should take maximally 40 minutes.
- The judges meet to select finalist posters.
Less finalists will allow for better judging in the finalists round,
so as few as possible should be selected, maximally N/4.
This should take maximally 20 minutes.
- All the judges visit the finalists to make a detailed assessment.
Each judge assesses each finalist as strong, moderate,
weak.
For judges that like a quantitative scale, these may be mapped
as strong = 5, moderate = 3, and weak = 1,
which also allows for a five point scale.
This should take maximally 40 minutes.
- The judges meet to select a winner.
This should take maximally 20 minutes.
- If the judges conclude with a tie, the program chairs decide the
final winner.
Judging Criteria
- Research Content
- Decription of problem - must be understandable by a non-expert
- Description of solution - must be understandable by a non-expert
- Evaluation of solution - data, etc.
- Contribution and impact clearly expressed
- Poster Preparation
- Clear layout and sequence
- Readability within 2-3 minutes (no large sections of text)
- Appropriate use of images and colours
- Use of reasonable materials (with deference to colleagues from
less affluent places)
- Presentation by Author
- Proactive greeting and invitation
- Concise and clear explanation of research and contribution
- Responses to questions
- Adequate personal presentation (no need for a suit, just a
"pass/fail" check that most presenters will pass anyway)
Judging Table
|
| Research
| Poster
| Presentation
| Comments
|
| Paper
| DoP
| DoS
| EoS
| C&I
| L&S
| Read
| I&C
| Mat
| G&I
| R&C
| RtQ
| APP
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
|