Differences

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

--- rem4:related_work_references [2008/08/28 18:10] – thorisson
+++ rem4:related_work_references [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 | Introduction | Overall context of the work, short summary of related work and a presentation of the motivation for the work - the problems that are to be addressed. Last paragraph: Explain the structure of the paper.  |
 | Motivation | Explicit presentation of the motivation (or fold this in with the Introduction, if the motivation can be expressed in 1-2 sentences).  |
-| Related work | Relatively dry discussion of prior work and how it is inadequate in addressing the problems that your idea addresses. |
+| Related work / Literature review  | Relatively dry discussion of prior work and how it is inadequate in addressing the problems that your idea addresses. |
 | Contributions | Your idea, your work. This is the topic of the paper. Describe it as clearly as you can. |
 | Evaluation | How do you make sure your idea is a good one? How do you convince others that it's a good idea? |
@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 | Support your main argument  | Remember: A scientific paper is an argument. The section on related work needs to support the main arguments made in the paper: \\ — Be selective on what papers you present in the section.  \\ — Construct a narrative (tell a story), to keep the reader interested. Nobody likes to read a long, dry recount of what has been done. Use your motivation(s) (what questions are you trying to answer?) to keep the story interesting.  |
 | Use topic to steer inclusion of related work  | The major topic of your paper will tell you what you need to review. Use your title and abstract to figure out what work to review.  |
+\\
+\\
+\\
+\\
+===The Potatostamp Method™===
+| What is it?  | A handy method to help you write a nice Related Work section  |
+| Step 1  | Group the paper you have identified as related work into groups, where each group represents (a) a particular way of solving the problem at hand and (b) all the solution have particular shortcomings.  |
+| Step 2   | (C) Write 2-3 sentences about what the researchers in the first group did; (d) write 1-2 sentences about the shortcomings of the work in this roup, wrt your own work (that is, write the shortcomings in a way that the reader sees why your own contribution is a direct response to these shortcomings   |
+| Step 3  | Go back to Step 1. Repeat as often as needed (a reasonably-sized Related Works section contains at least 3 groups of related work papers).   |
 \\
@@ Line 64: / Line 76: @@
 ===Structure of a Reference===
 | APA Style (Amer. Psychological Assoc.)  | Very common -- possibly the most common reference style; used in many fields. The one we will use. \\ **Book:**  Molich, Rolf (2003). //Brugervenligt webdesign.// Copenhagen: Teknisk Forlag. \\ **Journal:**  Thórisson, K. R., H. Benko, A. Arnold, D. Abramov, S. Maskey, A. Vaseekaran (2004). Constructionist Design Methodology for Interactive Intelligences. //A.I. Magazine//, 25(4): 77-90. [OPTIONAL:] Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence. \\ **Conference:** Melson, G. F., Kahn, Jr., Peter H., Beck, A. M., Friedman, B., Roberts, T. and Garrett, E. (2005). Robots as Dogs? Children's Interactions with the Robotic Dog AIBO and a Live Australian Shepherd. //Proceedings of CHI 2005//, Philadelphia, PA, April 2-7, 33-39.  |
-| Other styles  | see e.g.: http://www.library.adelaide.edu.au/guide/sci/Generalsci/sciwrit.html  |
+| Other styles  | see e.g.: http://dal.ca.libguides.com/content.php?pid=860&sid=11818  |
 \\
@@ Line 79: / Line 91: @@
 \\
 EOF