czwcandy
commented
6 months ago URL Reference: Response: "We appreciate the feedback regarding URL references. We will revise the report to include URL citations in a standard format, providing proper attribution to external sources. Thank you for bringing this to our attention."
Discussion: Response: "We recognize the importance of discussing the assumptions and limitations of our methodology. A dedicated section will be added to address these aspects, providing transparency and context to our analysis."
Docker File - Path Issues: Response: "Apologies for any confusion caused by the path issues in the Docker commands. We will update the documentation to ensure consistent paths and provide clear instructions for users to navigate the correct directories before running Docker commands."
Figure Font Size: Response: "Thanks for pointing out the font size concerns in our figures. But you can enlarge figures through mouse to see. No need to update this part.
New Figure Displaying Feature Magnitude: Response: "We agree with the suggestion to create a new figure explicitly displaying the magnitude of features. This will be implemented to enhance the visualization of feature importance and provide a more comprehensive understanding of our findings."
tangyl92
JBook building - The table of contents on the left side of the report has rendering issues; the font sizes are inconsistent and need to be standardized for better readability. URL Reference - Is it possible to reference them as website citations? Discussion - missing a discussion on the assumptions and limitations of the methodology used. Consider briefly discussing the main findings of your model, such as what features are most significant in predicting the dropout rate. Docker file - Some path issues. In the Usage Via Docker section, the commands for running the analysis in step 3 presume the user is within the scripts folder, while the command to build an HTML report in step 4 assumes the user is at the project root. Figure - Font size. The font size in Fig.1 and Fig.2 is too small, making it difficult for readers to interpret the data. Potential new figure - would benefit from explicitly displaying the magnitude of features.