Grading Rubric

Your open response submission will be graded by your peers according to the following rubric. Note that submissions are due one week before course close to allow time for peer grading. For this course run, submissions are due July 1, 2022 at 23:59 UTC. Peer grades are due at course close. Your grade will be based on the median grade from three of your peers.

Files (10 points possible)

The appropriate files are submitted in the correct formats: a CSV file of predictions and a report written as a Jupyter Notebook.

• 0 points: No files provided
• 5 points: At least one file is missing and/or not in the correct format
• 10 points: Both files were submitted in the requested formats

Run Time (10 points)

The running time should be entered as a text response with units.

• 0 points: Run time is not given
• 5 points: Run time is given but without units
• 10 points: Run time, including units, is provided

Jupyter Notebook (50 points possible)

The report is a Jupyter Notebook that documents the analysis, including the code used, and presents the findings, along with supporting statistics and figures. The report should be written in English and uploaded below. The report should include the following sections:

1. Introduction: describes the dataset and summarizes the goal of the project and key steps that were performed
2. Methods: explains the process and techniques used, such as data cleaning, data exploration and visualization, any insights gained, and your modeling approach
3. Results: presents the modeling results and discusses the model performance
4. Conclusion: gives a brief summary of the report
   • 0 points: The report is either not uploaded or contains very minimal information AND/OR the report appears to violate the edX Honor Code.
   • 15 points: Multiple required sections of the report are missing. Code is not included in the report and/or is not commented.
   • 20 points: The methods/analysis or the results section of the report is missing or missing significant supporting details. Other sections of the report are present. The code included is not well-commented and/or not easy to follow.
   • 25 points: The introduction/overview or the conclusion section of the report is missing, not well-presented or not consistent with the content. The code included is not well-commented and/or not easy to follow.
   • 30 points: The report includes all required sections, but the report is significantly difficult to follow or missing supporting detail in multiple sections. The code included is not well-commented and/or not easy to follow.
   • 35 points: The report includes all required sections, but the report is difficult to follow or missing supporting detail in one section. Some of the code included is not well-commented or not easy to follow.
   • 40 points: The report includes all required sections and is well-drafted and easy to follow, but with minor flaws in multiple sections. The code included is moderately well-commented and moderately easy to follow.
   • 45 points: The report includes all required sections and is easy to follow, but with minor flaws in one section. The code included is moderately well-commented and easy to follow.
   • 50 points: The report includes all required sections, is easy to follow with good supporting detail throughout, and is insightful and innovative. The code included is well-commented and easy to follow.