User Tools

Site Tools


bordeaux20142015:termproject

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision
Previous revision
bordeaux20142015:termproject [2014/11/26 17:10]
melancon created
bordeaux20142015:termproject [2015/01/06 16:03] (current)
bpinaud [Project teams]
Line 1: Line 1:
 ==== Term Project ==== ==== Term Project ====
  
 +=== Project teams ===
 + * Nathan LHOTE, Maxime SAVARO, Mohammed SENHAJI
 +
 + * Haolin REN, Baubacar FANE (Tracking the trading bot)
 +
 + * AUPETIT Jordan, LAUMOND Antoine.
 +
 + * ANTUNES Léa, ASSAB Rania
 +
 + ​* ​ Jérôme Bouzillard et Marjorie Mersch.
 +
 + ​* ​ Jolly Solène, Lamoureux Adrien, Sommard Vivien
 +
 + * Vincent Bocquel, Jérémy Turon
 +
 + * Etienne Grandier-Vazeille,​ Benoit Barthès
 +
 + * Simon Archipoff, Marie Gasparoux
 +
 + * Nicolas Yvon, Morgane Badré, Maxime Eychenié
 +
 + * Nicolas Spagnulo, Anne-laure Mesure
 + 
 + * Benjamin LETOURNEAU, Vincent WILMET
 === How will projects be evaluated? === === How will projects be evaluated? ===
  
Line 17: Line 41:
 | //Written document (wiki)// | Poor, hardly readable or usable | Contains everything it should, but needs to be reworked to be usable | Globally OK but could be improved | Good job, reads well | Extremely well crafted, could even be published as a blog //as is// | | //Written document (wiki)// | Poor, hardly readable or usable | Contains everything it should, but needs to be reworked to be usable | Globally OK but could be improved | Good job, reads well | Extremely well crafted, could even be published as a blog //as is// |
 | //​Evaluation (discussion)//​ | Poor, confusing | Everything seems to be there, but unorderly making it hard to grasp the work | Globally OK, could improved (showing better images, emphasizing the right things, etc.) | Good presentation,​ well balanced, lively, got all the information in the right order, straight to the point | Entertaining,​ attractive, intellectually challenging discussion | | //​Evaluation (discussion)//​ | Poor, confusing | Everything seems to be there, but unorderly making it hard to grasp the work | Globally OK, could improved (showing better images, emphasizing the right things, etc.) | Good presentation,​ well balanced, lively, got all the information in the right order, straight to the point | Entertaining,​ attractive, intellectually challenging discussion |
 +
 +=== What datasets? ===
 +
 +I have presented the term project using data from the 7th Framework Programme (FP7 - funding research in Europe) listing all participations of organizations (research centers, private companies) to projects.
 +
 +If you have a favorite dataset, do not hesitate to use it. Your dataset must not be too small, not too complex and somehow "​clean"​ (this is not a data curation exercise). The web is after all plenty of "Open Data" ...
 +
 +**Tracking the trading bot**
 +
 +  * I like the [[http://​rybn.dyndns.org/​ANTI/​ADM8/​|trading bot experience]] (a robot was given money and trades using automated algorithms, the deal is to predict when it goes bankrupt).
 +  * The data is readily available and modest (the bot has traded a bit less than 2000 times since it was launched).
 +  * Potential questions:
 +    * Does the bot perform trading based on any detectable patterns? Does the pattern evolve in time? How did it develop?
 +    * Is there any link between the share and/or companies the bot selects to bid on?
 +    * Can you provide evidence to support the prediction on the bot going bankrupt?
 +    * Etc.
   ​   ​
 +**FP7 -- European money funding research**
 +
 +  * [[https://​drive.google.com/​file/​d/​0B8rhzFA0ehR_TUluNkkzZENia2M/​view?​usp=sharing|Here is a listing of all project participations]]. The data comes equipped with numerous attributes. Not all attributes are useful or usable.
 +    * Each entry is a project - organization pair.
 +    * The SO AGGREGATED attribute allows to assign each project to a strategic objective (a research area, let's say). It is thus possible to consider projects according to these strategic objectives. Note that a same organization may participate in multiple projects and thus be part of two or more strategic objectives.
 +  * Observe that the data itself allows to build a bipartite network where organizations link to projects but not directly to one another. It is however possible to link organizations directly (whenever they have co-participated in a project).
 +  * Potential questions:
 +    * What are the hub organizations?​ (The "​big"​ actors in research), are these different according to different strategic objectives?
 +    * What are these organizations that cover multiple strategic objectives? Do they form some kind of interesting subnetwork?
 +    * Are there substantial budget difference between different strategic objectives?
 +    * Looking at collaborations between countries, do some European countries have special role for different parts of the world? What countries are getting more money from Europe? Does that relate with any specific strategic objective(s)?​
 +
 +**There are tons of other datasets available**
 +
 +Just browse the web. [[http://​konect.uni-koblenz.de/​|The KONECT site]] is a good entry point.
/net/html/perso/melancon/Visual_Analytics_Course/data/attic/bordeaux20142015/termproject.1417018228.txt.gz · Last modified: 2014/11/26 17:10 by melancon