Title Page

Summary/Abstract

Here you are listing a brief summary of the motivation (perhaps phrased as a “problem”), the methods you used to attack this problem, a summary of key results and your strongest conclusion(s).

Contents Page

Introduction

This section sets out your motivation, assumptions, first thoughts on what to do and the literature review.

Street entertainment is boring (motivation) and can be improved with real-time application of economic theory (assumption).

  1. Statement of Research Intent/Hypothesis: Street entertainment can be improved by providing the performers with real-time forecasts of the NZ Stock Exchange.
  2. Goals (in this work): Enable the throughput of economic forecasting in real time to a street performer.
  3. Initial Objectives (in this work): (i) Identify NZX shares which correlate with juggling in public, (ii) Write code to predict 3-day forecast on these NZX share prices, (iii) construct a portable unit to convey feedback to the user.

You could choose to state these initial objectives prior to the literature review and show how they were modified by the state of the art. Usually though, people just have these in their head and don’t document them. They are usually sketched out in your preliminary discussions with your supervision team.

The literature review should be exactly that: a review of the literature — not pulling out specific technical information (i.e. formulas) from the literature. The literature review should be “Amos and Flint (2009) described a system to do XXX, which performed better at blindfolded juggling overall compared to the earlier work by Jones and Jones (2005). However we note that the latter did not contemplate specifically blindfolded juggling. The reason for this is development in CNNs (see e.g. Twerp et al 2010) and improved computation times on embedded systems”. In none of that did we learn of the specific details or background theory of e.g CNNs. At the end of your literature review you can review and discuss your Statement of Research Intent in light of the literature.

 

The Literature Review should include who has done what on (i) street entertainment (perhaps a review article), (ii) juggling as performance art, (iii) relationship of application of real-time data for improving juggling performance, (iv) improvements in chip computing, (v) previous works on the relationship between stock prices and juggling, (vi) electroshock therapy.

 

Refined Objective(s): BASED ON OUR LITERATURE REVIEW, this work will comprise writing software which embodies convolutional neural networks and blockchain, fed real-time data for NZX stocks A, B and C, implemented on a raspberry pi which also controls an electroshock system.

 

Notice how we’ve gone from the broadest context (street entertainment is boring) progressively to a goal (provide real-time economic forecasting — implicitly to improve street entertainer performance), through to specific tasks, i.e. what you propose to do in this work. Also, general objectives have been refined — for example the original objective “feedback” has been amended to the more specific “electroshock” feedback.

 

Background

This is where a lot of what people write in their Literature Review should reside. Notice that the Background section only contains background material which is relevant for this work. There will be material you have read which turned out to have no relevance to your work — and these works have no place in your Literature Review section. There may be material referenced in the Literature Review that has no relevant material for the reader in the context of your specific goals and objectives, but the details in these works have no place in your Background section.

Software XXX

… is based on CNNs and pixie dust.

CNNs

equations, theory, words words

 

Pixie Dust

table of properties,

 

Software YYY

 

… requires a knowledge of tensor calculus, specifically some results:

 

Result A

E = mc^2 (proof provided in Appendix A)

 

Result B

x^n + y^n = z^n (proof provided in margin)

 

Raspberry Pi

… (version z) is cool and use the FFF chipset which has been optimised for jugglers. Specifically, the kinematic equations below have been hard-coded in the FFF chipset.
equation 1, equation 2.

 

Electroshock therapy

Equations 45–56 from [ref] quantify the pain response and memory retention profile for a standard human. This is modified by a coefficient, k, which is set at a value according to Table 3 which contains empirical data for different styles of juggling.

 

Defining quality of street performance

“Referring to Barnum and Bailey (1863) street performance can be quantified by Equation 101, wherein…”

 

Methodology

Ideally, all this methodology will be set out early in your project. Practically, this never happens — you tend to modify the methodology in light of results and you iteratively amend your methodology. A good report will keep a track of initial methodologies, their amendments and the motivation for the amendments.

Software

1. steps that will be done to install software XXX
2. steps that will be done to test this software on canned examples
3. steps that will be done to adapt this software for our purposes
4. steps to iteratively improve the metaparameters on our software to hit specific performance goals
6. steps to determine if we are ready to run for final results…

 

Hardware

1. steps to obtain necessary hardware the raspberry pi (version z)
2. steps that will be taken to test it
3. steps that will be taken to embed code
4. steps that will be taken test it

 

Preparation of experiment

1. steps to take to apply for ethics approval
2. prepare for plan B in the event that plan A is scuttled
3. steps to take to obtain volunteers
4. etc. etc.

 

Preparation of analysis

1. steps to install python library “jugglemath”
2. steps to analyse results

 

Results

Run the methodology. What happened? Report the results. Did the methodology have to be amended and re-run? Why? What was missed/wrong the first time? Were the assumptions still valid?
 

 

Discussion

Here you will include a description of the reliability and accuracy of your results, a description of the results in the context of the subject of the topic and set out the limitations of the experiment.

 

Conclusion and Further Work

Draw conclusions from the discussion (was the hypothesis supported or not by the results?).

Propose other objectives (for this work) to improve the acquisition of goals (of this work)

 

Set this work in CONTEXT — i.e. the next steps would include using  your system in a systematic way to collect data and examine to what extent these data support the broader goal (i.e. beyond the scope of this work). What are the caveats? What are the assumptions? What would you warn users of your software against?

References

Appendices