Old Rubrics
Your analysis and lab notebook will be evaluated based on the following rubric. Each item below is graded on a 0-4 point scale:
- 4 – Good (A): completes all listed tasks and provides appropriate context; thinks carefully about data and analysis; addresses all concerns raised by the results (where appropriate).
- 3 – Adequate (B): misses one or more minor element or lacks appropriate context; leaves a problem or ambiguity unaddressed; does not present analysis clearly enough.
- 2 – Needs improvement (C): omits or mishandles one or more item which renders the analysis fundamentally incorrect or incomplete; presents results in an incorrect or unclear way.
- 1 – Inadequate (D): omits or mishandles multiple items or treats them at an insufficient level; presentation is overall muddled or inaccurate; flaws in logic or process.
- 0 – Missing (F): omits all elements or makes no meaningful attempt.
All rubric items carry the same weight. The final grade for the experiment will be assigned based on the average (on a 4.0 scale) over all rubric items.
| Item | Good (4) | Adequate (3) | Needs Improvement (2) | Inadequate (1) |
| Lab notebook | Submits a legible and clear copy of a lab notebook which has no gaps and is a complete record of in-lab notes and observations, data (or references to data files), sketches, and in-lab calculations. | Submits a notebook which has some minor gaps, but is still easy to follow and serves as at least a high-level record. | Submits a notebook which is illegible or disorganized in certain places, or is missing important information. | Submits a lab notebook which is missing key information or is overall difficult to follow or understand. |
| Data handling | Shows the PHA spectrum for one source with relevant features clearly identified. Describes the process for extracting measured quantities from the raw data. Includes rationale for method of choosing each region of interest. Includes a Gaussian fit of one full energy peak with background along with all resultant fit parameters and uncertainties. | Presentation of how the raw data were handled is mostly clear, but one or more elements is missing or confusing. Plots are not properly labeled, annotated, scaled, etc. Some aspect of how data was handled demonstrates misunderstanding of experimental technique. Gaussian fit is attempted, but flawed. | Overall description of data handling is confusing or important aspects are omitted which make it unclear how the raw data were processed. Relevant parameters are incorrectly interpreted or the wrong parameters are measured. Gaussian fit is missing. | Attempt made, but is incorrect or missing appropriate discussion. |
| Uncertainties | Provides uncertainties in measured count rates. Identifies and justifies dominant uncertainties. Provides adequate calculations and description to make clear how uncertainties are propagated through calculations. | How the uncertainties were handled is made mostly clear, but one or more elements are missing or poorly presented. All elements are present, but discussion lacks clarity. Dominant uncertainty is not justified. | Uncertainties are presented without explanation or are incorrectly justified. Propagation formulas are missing or misused. | Treatment of uncertainties is inadequate or missing important information. Statements are made which are contradicted by the data. |
| Linear attenuation coefficient | For each gamma energy, provides an appropriately labeled and annotated plot of the data and fit. Clearly presents linear attenuation coefficients and associated uncertainties. Correctly interprets goodness of fit parameters. Identifies and adaquately discusses any anomalies in the the data. | All elements are addressed, but one or more elements are poorly presented. Plots are not properly labeled or annotated, or are confusing to read. Minor anomalies in data are present but not pointed out and discussed. | Goodness of fit parameters are incorrectly interpreted. Major anomalies in data are present and clearly affect the final result or suggest that there were important mistakes made in collecting and analyzing the data without being accounted for. | Linear attenuation values are given, but no plots or fits are shown. Attempt made, but is incorrect or missing appropriate discussion. |
| Identify dominant absorption mechanism | Uses appropriate graphs or tables to compare measured linear attenuation coefficients with literature values. Identifies dominant absorption mechanisms for each gamma energy measured. Compares data to Thomson model and provides some justification for the why the measured value may be higher or lower than predicted. | Data is not presented in a clear fashion. Discussion leaves out significant details of how dominant absorption mechanisms were identified. | Dominant absorption mechanisms misidentified. No uncertainties given for measured linear attenuation coefficients. Statements are made which are not supported by the data. | Attempt made, but is incorrect or missing appropriate discussion. Statements are made which are contradicted by the data. |