Sharat Embrandiri
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Victoria Hodges
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Kiran Marri
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Zachary Bailey
Virginia Tech/ Wake Forest
Derek Jones
Virginia Tech/ Wake Forest
Sharat Embrandiri
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Nora Hlavac
Virginia Tech
Stephanie Recker
Miami University
Navaneethakrishna Makaram
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Vidya KV
Sri Sai Ram Engineering College
Mireille Kelley
Virginia Tech/ Wake Forest
Mary Pearson
North Dakota State University
Stephanie Recker
Miami University
Of the 32 students, four did not ask to participate in the contest. 1 did not present the final version of the paper.
For the written competition, all the papers were reviewed as part of the paper acceptance process: each paper was reviewed by 2 or 3 judges (three papers were reviewed only by one judge and were excluded from the written competition by unanimous decision of the program and contest chairs). 28 judges expressed their preferences in the written competition and they reviewed between 4 and 7 papers. The written scores were normalized for each judge and the total score for each paper was the average of the normalized scores.
At the symposium, 17 presentations and 10 posters were judged.
18 judges expressed their preferences in the presentation competition. Not all students were evaluated by the same judges and not all of them received the same number of votes, but each presentation was judged by at least 7 judges. The scores were again normalized for each judge and the total score for each presentation was the average of the normalized scores. One student did not show at the conference and was excluded from the competition (including the written contest).
Five judges expressed their preferences in the poster competition. As for the presentations, the scores were normalized for each judge and the total score for each poster was the average of the normalized scores. Three posters were not at the conference, so they were excluded from the competition. One student was not at the conference, but the poster was judged anyway since another student presented it. Each poster received at least three scores.
For the special awards, four judges were involved. Each judge subjectively selected and ranked up to five students as the possible winners of their special award.
Hamed Benguzzi
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Connor Bradfield
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Of the 25 professionals, 13 did not ask to participate in the contest. Three authors presented two papers each.
For the written competition, the same criteria as the student's written competitions applied.
At the symposium, nine presentations and four posters were judged. Ten students expressed their preferences in the Professional presentation competition, but none of them expressed their preference in the Professional poster competition which was therefore canceled. Not all professionals were evaluated by the same students and not all of them received the same number of votes, but each professional presentation was judged by at least seven students. The scores were again normalized for each judge and the total score for each professional was the average of the normalized scores.