Literature review project/presentation
The aim of this literature review project is for each student to engage in a bit more depth with an important topic in modern stellar physics and explain it to the rest of the class. This is effectively a literature review + exposition project, you are not expected to produce new results, but you should aim at digesting and being able to explain the context, physical processes at play, and how they relate to the material seen in class (during lectures, activities, and other student presentations!).
N.B.: The aim of the project is for you to focus on the physical processes that are relevant and to put them in the context of the course material to explain the rest of the class something.
Each student will be assigned a topic to research from the list below and provide a short written summary (≤ 5 pages including figures and/or tables and references) and an oral presentation to the classroom. This will allow each student to dig deeper into a topic we cannot spend too much time on in class, and at the same we can all learn from each other!
The written text has to be submitted at least three lectures before the presentation is scheduled. The oral presentation is 20min+10min questions. I strongly recommend talking to me at least 3 weeks (the earlier the better!) before your written presentation is due to discuss materials that you found and the structure and content of the presentation.
Timeline
- Presentation day minus 2 lectures: submission of manuscript to peer-referees
- Presentation day minus 1 lectures: referees submit feedback
- Presentation day: Oral presentation (slides or whiteboard) + submission of final manuscript
All files should be exchanged in pdf format, via email copying the instructor. To make sure that your peers have time to read, provide feedback, and incorporate that feedback, please adhere strictly to this timeline. Any deviations need to be agreed upon by all parties.
Procedure to assign projects
Each student will be asked identify 5 topics of interest from the list below, and I will assign the research topic and the peer referees from these lists. It may not be possible to satisfy each student's preferences.
List of possible projects/presentations
If you have some other topic in mind, please come talk to me early on, as we may be able to accommodate it.
- Stellar rotation: observational evidence
- Stellar rotation: Von Zeipel theorem
- Stellar rotation: angular momentum transport processes
- From Teff to color: bolometric corrections and extinction
- Asteroseismology
- Cepheids as distance indicators
- Astrometry & the Gaia mission
- Astrometry: walkaway, runaway, and/or hyper-velocity stars
- Astrometric detection of Gaia BH1, BH2, BH3, and NS1
- Tides in stars
- Algol Paradox
- Common envelope evolution
- Mass transfer in binary systems
- Clusters: globular and open
- Globular clusters: dynamics
- Formation of stars
- Stars in galaxies: Chemical evolution
- Stars in galaxies: Mechanical feedback
- Stars in galaxies: Radiative feedback
- Nucleosynthesis: s-process
- Nucleosynthesis: r-process
- X-ray binaries
- Thermonuclear explosion in WDs
- Neutron star structure
- The Eddington limit
- Convective boundary mixing
- Schönberg-Chandrasekhar limit and its consequences
- Supernova Ia
- Analytic stellar models: Lane-Emden equation
- Analytic stellar models: Eddington standard model
- Novae
- Supermassive stars
- Stellar neutrinos
- Pair instability supernovae
- Triple systems: Kozai-Lidov-von Zeipel oscillations
- Orbital architectures of (star+star) binaries in the Universe
- The lowest mass stars: M dwarfs and Brown dwarfs
- Something else within the scope of the course (to be agreed upon!)
- Combination of topics above (to be agreed upon!)
Recommended sources
You are encouraged to do your own research, but in the final manuscript (and when appropriate in the oral presentation) you need to cite all the relevant sources. These can be textbooks, review papers, and/or journal articles. To find journal articles, you can use NASA/ADS. You can use online freely-available resources (e.g., Wikipedia) as a starting point, but should go find primary sources (e.g., what Wikipedia itself cites, if not the references cited by the source from Wikipedia, and so on…).
Grading
This part is worth 40% of your final grade – as much as all the homework combined, so you want to do it well!
Both text and presentations will be evaluated by the instructors and your peers according to the evaluation rubrics outlined below.
More specifically, the text will be evaluated by two other students in the class, while the oral presentation and handling of the questions will be evaluated by all the students present. Your presence and active participation in the presentation from other students is required and will be counted towards the general in-class participation.
All students will be encouraged to ask questions during the presentations. The questions and the way you provide your evaluations and feedback to your peers will also be considered for your final grading.
The breakdown of the project/presentation grade is as follows:
- 50% for the oral presentation and QA (corresponding to 20% of the total final grade)
- 40% for the written report (corresponding to 16% of the total final grade)
- 10% from how you provide feedback to others (corresponding to 4% of the total final grade).
N.B.: Regardless of the quantitative weight of each portion towards the grade, your engagement is necessary for the success of the others. When refereeing your feedback should help them improve, and nobody wants to present to an absent audience!
Evaluation rubric
Remember to appreciate the time and effort others have put in their work and be kind and constructive in providing feedback. The aim is to learn and improve, not to crush other people's work. And also, nothing is ever perfect, there is always something to be asked and/or something that can be improved!
- Written summary
This counts for 40% of this assignment, corresponding to 16% of the total grade.
Exceptional Very good Adequate Poor Scientific depth The (astro)physics is clearly explained in a The (astro)physics is explained in a clear The (astro)physics is explained but the The (astro)physics is not explained concise but insightful way. The topic is way and context is provided. Quantitative presentation could be clearer. Small gaps in or the explanation is incorrect. appropriately unwrapped and connected to and qualitative aspects are discussed in the quantitative and/or qualitative aspects Quantitative and/or qualitative. the broader context. Qualitative and quantitative an understandable fashion. can be identified. errors are present, aspects are clearly addressed and put in context. Content logic and readability The scope of the presentation is clearly The scope is stated clearly stated. The scope could have been clarified more The presentation does not proceed stated. The presentation builds up clearly and The presentation logically builds to it, explicitly but is in the end achieved. The orderly and it is hard to follow. progressively, in an easy to follow and logical and the reader can follow it. The (astro) (astro)physical aspects are explained in an The (astro)physical context is left way. The physics presented is correct and physics is clearly explained and the appropriate way that the reader can follow. implicit and not enough pointers the depth is adequate. References are to is given sufficient pointers to The reader is given a starting point for for further investigation reliable sources. dig deeper. further investigation. are provided Structure and formatting Clear, logical, engaging, and easy to follow. Clear and easy to follow. The text is sufficiently clear. The text is hard to follow. All figures are useful, have captions, and are Figures are provided with When present, figures are useful Figures and/or captions are missing and well integrated with text. All references useful caption and integrated but could be better integrated, or not useful. References are are provided and relevant. in the tex. All references are listed. captions could be improved for clarity. incomplete or missing. References are provided but seem incomplete. - Oral presentation
This counts for 50% of this assignment, corresponding to 20% of the total grade.
Exceptional Very good Adequate Poor Content and Scientific depth The presentation is logical, thorough, and clear. The presentation is logical and clear. The presentation is logical, The presentation is Topics are appropriately unwrapped within the The speaker's line of argument is easy the speaker makes their argument incomplete or unclear. The available time. The speaker provides the audience to follow and provides the audience clear and the audience can line of argument is hard to with insight and understanding and is thought with new insight and knowledge. effectively learn from the follow or contains provoking. presentation. factual errors. Slides quality and delivery Informative and exciting slides that Clear and relevant slides that Slides contain the relevant Slides are cluttered effectively corroborate the presentation corroborate the presentation. information. The tone is or incomplete and do by the speaker. No information is missing The tone is clear and well paced, clear and the timing is not effectively support or unclear. The tone is engaging and well the timing is right. The speaker right. The speaker's engagement the speaker's presentation. paced. The speaker shows mastery of the shows mastery of the topic, with the audience could be Information is missing or topic, talk to the audience, and their engages with the audience smoother. The speaker answers unclear. The speaker does timing is perfect. most questions clearly. not talk to the audience but rather to themselves. The speaker is overtime. QA handling The speaker repeats the questions to make The speaker answers questions clearly The speaker answers clearly The speaker answers in sure everyone can follow and handles them and concisely. with insightful answers, but a confused/confusing manner honestly and clearly. Answers are clear, concise, Answers are insightful and help the the answers could be shortened or with factually incorrect and useful (remember: the speaker is not audience. without loss of content. information. required to know everything!) N.B.: You are not obliged to make slides, and you can use the whiteboard if you think this fits better the presentation of your topic.
- Providing feedback
This counts for 10% of this assignment, corresponding to 4% of total grade.
Exceptional Very good Adequate Poor Feedback Positive aspects are highlighted before Positive aspects are noted, suggestion Actionable suggestions No relevant actionable suggestion is provided. providing clear, constructive, and actionable are clear, actionable, and relevant. are provided, but could The tone is dismissive, and/or unclear. suggestions on the things that could be be clearer. Some suggestions If the provider of this feedback would be at improved. The tone is supportive and comments seem only marginally relevant. the receiving end of it, they would feel are fair and useful (as opposed to nitpicky). discouraged instead of helped. N.B.: the aim of the feedback is to help the author improve their presentation. You are asked to evaluate the work, not the author. Give clear and constructive criticism focusing on helping the presenter.
Honors project
To get honors credits for this class, on top of the project described above, you will do a stellar evolution theory project using the MESA code on your own laptop to investigate in more depth some aspect that we will only barely mention in class. Follow this link to see an example honors project.