Timeline for How to write a math abstract for a conference in an experimentalist dominated field without "specific numerical results"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 27, 2018 at 14:22 | comment | added | kcrisman | I just want to say that this question could stand in for many interdisciplinary "social expectation" issues, and I hope more people ask questions about these problems of differing expectations across fields. It is definitely a disincentive for people to start working a bit outside the field of their PhD. | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:49 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://academia.stackexchange.com/ with https://academia.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 1, 2014 at 16:16 | vote | accept | WetlabStudent | ||
| May 29, 2014 at 17:56 | comment | added | Fomite | @JeffE Some of my most productive collaborations have come from conferences that generated exactly this kind of problem. | |
| May 29, 2014 at 17:56 | answer | added | Fomite | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 29, 2014 at 4:32 | comment | added | JeffE | It sounds like you should be submitting your abstract to a different conference. | |
| May 29, 2014 at 4:28 | answer | added | RHC | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 24, 2014 at 0:12 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | Also, enunciating the obvious a bit: it sounds like you come from a more theoretical background (you might consider providing some professional information about yourself on your profile page; it can only help you get more appropriate answers, but from your other questions and answers I guess you are in a rather math-heavy branch of statistics) and you are finding the norms of speaking in this conference to be a bit awkward and outside of your comfort zone. Maybe then you can just attend the conference without giving a talk in it? | |
| Mar 24, 2014 at 0:09 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | Have you already been invited to speak at the conference? If so, the point of the abstract seems to be mainly for people to decide whether to attend your talk. How long are such abstracts usually? In my experience (in mathematics), abstracts for talks are usually at most a paragraph and sometimes just a couple of sentences. Speaking in general terms seems unavoidable. | |
| Feb 19, 2014 at 15:53 | comment | added | teodron | As a clear answer: present a proof or a narrative explaining clearly why your method improves upon a specific subject. That proof is valuable for both experimentalists and theorists, as it definitely decides upon the qualities of your method. Doing so, I see no point in why you won't be accepted to speak there :). You may also find some people keen on verifying your findings and thus producing the so-called results.. | |
| Feb 19, 2014 at 15:44 | comment | added | teodron | Both publishing and disseminating of a method require you convince the auditorium of the method's validity and quality. If it's an applied field crowd you'll be addressing, they'll cough asking for some sort of benchmarks. Sorry, but this is how these guys "roll". Pure mathematicians do not understand/do not care of how a method performs if it's novel enough (if you just show that one thing implies another thing or generalizes it, it's fine with them), whereas applied maths people will often care only about concrete gains and applicability. Alas, it also depends on the conference's reputation. | |
| Feb 19, 2014 at 15:27 | comment | added | WetlabStudent | publish? There is no paper associated with this conference. | |
| Feb 19, 2014 at 9:13 | comment | added | teodron | From experience: you just cannot simply publish without (numerical) results. Why? Applied people rely on those to qualitatively assess the value of your work. They have to compare it and the interested readers in those fields almost always judge a method by figures and numbers. They need to decide if that method is worth implementing, regardless of the approach's novelty constituents. Your one and only chance is to deliver a narrative (in the abstract) that clearly emphasizes why this method would surely beat state of the art alternatives. Otherwise, go for another conference.. | |
| Feb 19, 2014 at 7:36 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackAcademia/status/436041554592268288 | ||
| Feb 19, 2014 at 6:23 | history | asked | WetlabStudent | CC BY-SA 3.0 |