collective/cdsc_examples_repository
17
0
Fork 0
Code

adds a new section, stripping down the gender-sharing response into a

Browse Source 
proto-template
This commit is contained in:
Kaylea Champion 2019-06-20 12:15:07 -07:00
parent a3aa7637e0
commit 9d1c930911
1 changed files with 118 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

118
cscw_changelogs/template_rnr_cscw/template-revision_summary.tex Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
\documentclass[12pt,letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{ fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8x]{ inputenc}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[usenames,dvipsnames]{xcolor}
\usepackage[breaklinks]{hyperref}
\hypersetup{colorlinks=true, linkcolor=Black, citecolor=Black, filecolor=Blue,
urlcolor=Blue, unicode=true}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage[font=footnotesize,labelfont=bf]{caption}
\usepackage[margin=0.8in]{geometry}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage[round]{natbib}
\usepackage{url}
\def\citepos#1{\citeauthor{#1}'s (\citeyear{#1})}
\def\citespos#1{\citeauthor{#1}' (\citeyear{#1})}
\def\todo{{\normalsize\color{BrickRed}{TODO }}}
\def\done{{\normalsize\color{SkyBlue}{DONE }}}
\begin{document}
%%This is a blank-ish version of an R&R response to CSCW.
%%double comments indicate true comments, while single comments (% ) indicate snippets of example text
%%==> indicates a to do item
%%==>Customize to your title
%\title{Revision Summary for ``Gender, Feedback, and Learners' Decisions to Share Their Creative Computing Projects''}
\author{}
\date{}
\maketitle
\vspace{-1.5cm}
%First and foremost, we thank the AC and the three reviewers for the time they have spent on our paper and for their detailed and very helpful feedback. As we hope you will see, we have taken this feedback seriously and spent an enormous amount of time and effort making an extensive revision of our manuscript to address the concerns that were raised. In particular, this work has involved new data collection, new analyses, and new results.
%We believe that the changes we have made address all of the substantive concerns raised by the reviewers. In the rare situations where we were not able to follow a reviewer's suggestion, we have also documented that here. In particular, we have made changes to address each of the points highlighted by the 1AC in their revision summary.
%As part of these revisions, we have expanded our supplement significantly with additional figures and details of our analyses. If accepted to CSCW, this supplement will be uploaded to the ACM DL alongside our paper. We will also upload all the material in the supplement ZIP file to the Harvard Dataverse and include a link to the permanent DOI for this archive in the camera ready version of our paper.
%This document attempts to provide a comprehensive description of our revisions organized into sections on new analyses (§\ref{sec:analyses}), improvements we've made to our manuscript's framing and background (§\ref{sec:framing}), clarifications about our data and methods (§\ref{sec:methods}), and changes we have made that were not requested (§\ref{sec:other}).
%While our revised document is now longer than our initial submission, we believe that the revisions described here have greatly improved the manuscript, and we appreciate the time and effort that our anonymous referees have spent on our work.
\section{New analyses}
\label{sec:analyses}
%\subsection{Examining other factors that influence sharing}
%The 2AC urged us to conduct new analysis with additional control variables:
%\begin{quote}
%\end{quote}
%These concerns were echoed by the 1AC.
%R2 also made a point along these lines and suggested that we might consider project type and complexity:
%\begin{quote}
% It would also be beneficial to know whether there are differences across projects' genres and complexity. If it is known that there are gender differences across those variables, then it seems necessary to consider such variables in this analysis as well.
% \end{quote}
%To address these concerns, we have collected new data in the form of three new control variables:
%We have made several changes to introduce these new variables:
%\begin{itemize}
% \item The new controls have been added to our descriptive statistics table.
% \item We have added a full paragraph to our data and measures section to introduce these new control variables and describe them in detail.
% \item Because several reviewers' comments asked questions about the distributions of our variables, we have included detailed plots in our supplement which show the distributions and medians for our new variables (as well as our other project-level variables) broken down by stratum and gender.
%\end{itemize}
%\begin{enumerate}
% \item In M1 we estimated that the marginal effect of $\mathit{Is~Female?}$ on $\mathit{Is~Shared?}$ was negative for users' first several projects before growing steadily. Our estimates in M2 follow a similar pattern but are ``shifted up'' so that we now estimate a null marginal effect in users' initial projects.
% \item In M1, we estimated a positive relationship between $\mathit{Love~Count}$ and $\mathit{Is~Shared?}$ in initial strata, which quickly decreased in size and stabilized as negative. With the addition of controls in M2, this effect is stable and negative throughout.
\end{enumerate}
%\subsection{Unpack mechanisms behind surprising results for feedback}
%\label{sec:sas}
%\section{Clarifications in regards to data and methods}
%\label{sec:methods}
%\subsection{Explain access to dataset}
%\section{Other Changes}
%\label{sec:other}
%\begin{itemize}
% \item We have added two sentences to our analytic plan section explaining why we log transform our variables.
% \item We realized that projects on Scratch can be ``self-loved'' (i.e. the author of the project can click on love-it on their own project). While this is a rare practice, we updated our programming code to make sure this is accounted for and self-loves are not counted in the analysis in this updated version. This change did not affect our results at all.
% \item We have added a paragraph of text to better describe our prototypical probability plots more effectively. In particular:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item We have clearly described that this table reflects simulated data generated using our model.
%
% \item We have explained how to interpret Bayesian prediction intervals. We were worried because these are substantially different than credible intervals for parameters or confidence intervals in a frequentist framework.
% \item We moved some text from our figure caption into the text to explain how control variables were fixed. We have much more clearly and specifically explained how we have fixed variables that do not vary visibly in the graph.
% \end{itemize}
% We believe that these changes make interpreting our results easier. We believe this is important given the addition of the requested analyses.
% \item We have carefully edited our document for clarity, redundancy, and style. We hope that the document is easier to read as a result.
%\end{itemize}
\bibliographystyle{chicago}
\bibliography{references}
\end{document}