&&国之画&&&& &&
版权所有 京ICP备号-2
迷上了代码！帐号:密码:下次自动登录{url:/nForum/slist.json?uid=guest&root=list-section}{url:/nForum/nlist.json?uid=guest&root=list-section}
贴数:16&分页:why发信人: whysoshy (why), 信区: AI
标&&题: 大家的IJCAI都多少分？
发信站: 水木社区 (Sat Mar 14 08:33:03 2009), 站内 && 我的 6，7，8，不知道希望大不大 && -- && ※ 来源:·水木社区 ·[FROM: 219.79.188.*]
lalal发信人: zaizh (lalal), 信区: AI
标&&题: Re: 大家的IJCAI都多少分？
发信站: 水木社区 (Sat Mar 14 08:50:38 2009), 站内 &&&&&&满分分值是多少？ && 【 在 whysoshy (why) 的大作中提到: 】
: 我的 6，7，8，不知道希望大不大
&& -- && ※ 来源:·水木社区 ·[FROM: 124.114.197.*]
蓝天白云发信人: dency (Below Average), 信区: AI
标&&题: Re: 大家的IJCAI都多少分？
发信站: 水木社区 (Sat Mar 14 08:56:20 2009), 站内 &&&& 10 && 【 在 zaizh (lalal) 的大作中提到: 】
:&&满分分值是多少？
Live as if you were to die tomorrow, && Learn as if you were to live forever. &&&& ※ 来源:·水木社区 newsmth.net·[FROM: 124.160.46.*]
蓝天白云发信人: dency (Below Average), 信区: AI
标&&题: Re: 大家的IJCAI都多少分？
发信站: 水木社区 (Sat Mar 14 08:57:15 2009), 站内 && 大致是
neutral&& weak accept
运气不是太差的话，应该能中 && 【 在 whysoshy (why) 的大作中提到: 】
: 我的 6，7，8，不知道希望大不大
You are today where your k && You will be tomorrow where your knowledge takes you. &&&& ※ 修改:·dency 于 Mar 14 08:57:44 2009 修改本文·[FROM: 124.160.46.*]
※ 来源:·水木社区 newsmth.net·[FROM: 124.160.46.*]
fantasy|水木|FF|永远发信人: fantasystar (fantasy|水木|FF|永远), 信区: AI
标&&题: Re: 大家的IJCAI都多少分？
发信站: 水木社区 (Sat Mar 14 10:16:38 2009), 站内 && 我578，不过5那个reviewer给了剧短的review
打算argue一下然后拼人品 && 【 在 whysoshy (why) 的大作中提到: 】
: 我的 6，7，8，不知道希望大不大
2009 PhD Application - case closed, no further renewal will be made
Applied: 10
Rejection: 3
Admission: 0
Ongoing Interview: 0 &&&& ※ 来源:·水木社区 newsmth.net·[FROM: 59.66.120.38]
竹天发信人: Enoch2010 (竹天), 信区: AI
标&&题: Re: 大家的IJCAI都多少分？
发信站: 水木社区 (Sat Mar 14 10:26:48 2009), 站内 && 我也578，但是那个5给了一个巨长的review，
心寒阿……
【 在 fantasystar (fantasy|水木|FF|永远) 的大作中提到: 】
: 我578，不过5那个reviewer给了剧短的review
: 打算argue一下然后拼人品
&& -- && ※ 来源:·水木社区 ·[FROM: 159.226.21.*]
fantasy|水木|FF|永远发信人: fantasystar (fantasy|水木|FF|永远), 信区: AI
标&&题: Re: 大家的IJCAI都多少分？
发信站: 水木社区 (Sat Mar 14 10:28:12 2009), 站内 && 贴个去年AAAI的criterion作参考 && AAAI-08 Reviewing Criteria && Relevance
What is the relevance of this paper to an AI audience? &&&&&&&&1: Not relevant &&&&&&4: Moderately relevant &&&&&&7: Relevant to researchers in subarea only &&&&&&10: Relevant to general AI && Significance && Are the results important? Are other people (practitioners or researchers) likely to use these ideas or build on them? Does the paper address a difficult problem in a better way than previous research? Does it advance the state of the art in a demonstrable way? Does it provide unique data, unique conclusions on existing data, or a unique theoretical or pragmatic approach? &&&&&&&&1: Not significant &&&&&&4: Moderately significant &&&&&&7: Significant &&&&&&10: Highly significant && Technical soundness
Is the paper technically sound? Are the concepts correct and accurate? &&&&&&&&1: Has major errors &&&&&&4: Has minor errors &&&&&&7: Technically sound &&&&&&10: Major technical contribution && Novelty && Are the problems or approaches novel? Is this a novel combination of familiar techniques? Is it clear how this work differs from previous contributions? Is related work adequately referenced? &&&&&&&&1: Not novel &&&&&&4: Moderately novel &&&&&&7: Novel &&&&&&10: Very novel && Quality of Evaluation && Are claims well-supported by theoretical analysis or experimental results? How convincing is the evidence in support of the conclusions? Are the authors careful (and honest) about evaluating both the strengths and weaknesses of the work? &&&&&&&&1: Not convincing &&&&&&4: Moderately convincing &&&&&&7: Convincing &&&&&&10: Very convincing && Clarity && Is the paper clearly written? Is it well-organized? (If not, feel free to make suggestions to improve the manuscript.) Does it adequately inform the reader? (A superbly written paper provides enough information for the expert reader to reproduce its results.) &&&&&&&&1: Poor &&&&&&4: Satisfactory &&&&&&7: Good &&&&&&10: Excellent && OVERALL SCORE &&&& 1. Trivial or wrong or known. &&&&&&Clearly below AAAI threshold, I assume no further discussion is needed. && 2. A strong rejection. &&&&&&I will strongly argue for rejection. && 3. A clear rejection. &&&&&&I vote and argue for rejection. && 4. An OK paper, but not good enough. A rejection. &&&&&&I vote for rejecting it, although would not be upset if it were accepted. && 5. Marginally below the acceptance threshold. &&&&&&I tend to vote for rejecting it, but having it in the program would not be that bad. && 6. Marginally above the acceptance threshold. &&&&&&I tend to vote for accepting it, but leaving it out of the program would be no great loss. && 7. Good paper, accept. &&&&&&I vote for acceptance, although would not be upset if it were rejected. && 8. Top 50% of accepted AAAI papers, a very good paper, a clear accept. &&&&&&I vote and argue for acceptance. && 9. Top 15% of accepted AAAI papers, an excellent paper, a strong accept. &&&&&&I will fight for acceptance. &&10. Top 5% of accepted AAAI papers, a seminal paper for the ages. &&&&&&Clearly an outstanding paper. I assume no further discussion is needed. && CONFIDENCE SCORE &&&&&&&&1: The reviewer's evaluation is an educated guess and it is quite likely that the reviewer did not understand central parts of the paper. Either the paper is not in the reviewer's area, or it was extremely difficult to understand &&&&&&&&4: The reviewer is fairly confident that the evaluation is correct. It is possible that the reviewer did not understand certain parts of the paper, or that the reviewer was unfamiliar with a piece of relevant literature. Mathematics and other details were not carefully checked. &&&&&&&&7: The reviewer is confident but not absolutely certain that the evaluation is correct. It is unlikely but conceivable that the reviewer did not understand certain parts of the paper, or that the reviewer was unfamiliar with a piece of relevant literature. &&&&&&&&10:The reviewer is absolutely certain that the evaluation is correct and very familiar with the relevant literature. &&&& 【 在 zaizh (lalal) 的大作中提到: 】
:&&满分分值是多少？
2009 PhD Application - case closed, no further renewal will be made
Applied: 10
Rejection: 3
Admission: 0
Ongoing Interview: 0 &&&& ※ 来源:·水木社区 newsmth.net·[FROM: 59.66.120.38]
得之我幸发信人: zibuyu (得之我幸), 信区: AI
标&&题: Re: 大家的IJCAI都多少分？
发信站: 水木社区 (Sat Mar 14 10:35:33 2009), 站内 && 长了反而容易抓到他的把柄吧，好好看看。:)
【 在 Enoch2010 (竹天) 的大作中提到: 】
: 我也578，但是那个5给了一个巨长的review，
: 心寒阿……
&&&& -- && ※ 来源:·水木社区 newsmth.net·[FROM: 166.111.135.*]
13姐生了个男娃，替她开心！发信人: duckyaya (硕士论文writing), 信区: AI
标&&题: Re: 大家的IJCAI都多少分？
发信站: 水木社区 (Sat Mar 14 10:37:26 2009), 站内 && 刚才看了，是7，7，8。 && 这个分数说的是overall score么？
【 在 whysoshy (why) 的大作中提到: 】
: 我的 6，7，8，不知道希望大不大
太阳当空照，花儿对我笑，
小鸟说早早早，你为什么背上炸药包？
我去炸学校，老师不知道，
拉了隐线我就跑，轰隆一声学校炸飞了！ &&&& ※ 来源:·水木社区 ·[FROM: 166.111.138.244]
passer_by发信人: tsh9 (passer_by), 信区: AI
标&&题: Re: 大家的IJCAI都多少分？
发信站: 水木社区 (Sat Mar 14 11:21:41 2009), 站内 && 太牛了！！！
【 在 duckyaya (硕士论文writing) 的大作中提到: 】
: 刚才看了，是7，7，8。
: 这个分数说的是overall score么？
&&&& -- && ※ 来源:·水木社区 newsmth.net·[FROM: 59.66.117.*]
文章数:16&分页:君，已阅读到文档的结尾了呢~~
广告剩余8秒
文档加载中
直推式迁移学习及其应用研究直推式迁移学
扫扫二维码，随身浏览文档
手机或平板扫扫即可继续访问
直推式迁移学习及其应用研究
举报该文档为侵权文档。
举报该文档含有违规或不良信息。
反馈该文档无法正常浏览。
举报该文档为重复文档。
推荐理由：
将文档分享至：
分享完整地址
文档地址：
粘贴到BBS或博客
flash地址：
支持嵌入FLASH地址的网站使用
html代码：
&embed src='/DocinViewer-4.swf' width='100%' height='600' type=application/x-shockwave-flash ALLOWFULLSCREEN='true' ALLOWSCRIPTACCESS='always'&&/embed&
450px*300px480px*400px650px*490px
支持嵌入HTML代码的网站使用
您的内容已经提交成功
您所提交的内容需要审核后才能发布，请您等待！
3秒自动关闭窗口