ETC5521 Diving Deeper into Data Exploration: Project, part 2

As per Monash’s integrity rules, these solutions are not to be shared beyond this class.

🎯 Goal

The project is designed to challenge you to conduct an exploratory data analysis. Here we are going to explore corporate financials over 2020-2022 as reported from the Bureau van Dijk OSIRIS Database.

The project represents 20% of your final grade for ETC5521. This is a team assignment, and your team member(s) will be allocated by the teaching staff.

📌 Guidelines

1. Check the team sheet. The “part2” sheet lists your team and the country chosen for part 1. Decide which country you want to compare the analysis with. You can pick any other country, although it cannot be the same as the other team that analysed the same country as you in Part 1. That is, if team A and team B work on Australia, then if team A chooses Germany as the second country, team B need to choose any other country except Australia or Germany.

2. One team member will need to

   • create a release of the final state of the repo, labelled Part1.
   • provide access to the Project Part 1 Github repo to the new group members who also analysed the same country. This needs to be done by Thursday, Oct 24, 11:45pm (Tutorial day week 12).

3. The diary still needs to be updated after every meeting, and after any period of individual work on the project. Working as a team is a skill, needing management of individual strengths, working habits and personality differences, with an end-product that is better than any member can do on their own. The diary should include individual work effort as well as team efforts. Note that marks will be deducted for lack of collaborative effort, by any individual member, and could be as much as 100% deduction.

4. For the the second part put your analysis in a new document report_p2.qmd. This file and the resulting .html file need to be added to your GitHub repo. You will also need to provide links to any Generative AI conversation you employed in arriving at your solution. Note that marks are allocated for overall grammar and structure of your final report.

5. We will check your git commit history. Every team member should have substantial and roughly equal in number of contributions to the repo with consistent commits over time.

6. Refer back to relevant lecture notes and tutorial exercises in developing your solutions. The purpose is to demonstrate what you have learned fron this unit. Only content from this unit can be used. This includes plotting methods, numerical methods, R packages, modeling methods. Every plot, table, and calculation made needs to have a reference to the material, e.g. (Lecture 1, slide 10) or (Reading Week 3). Marks will be deducted for approaches used that have not been discussed in the unit.

7. You are expected to develop your solutions with your team members, without discussing any details with other class members or other friends or contacts. You can ask for clarifications from the teaching team and we encourage you to attend consultations to get assistance as needed. As a Monash student you are expected to adhere to Monash’s academic integrity policy. and the details on use of Generative AI as detailed on this unit’s Moodle assessment overview.

8. We expect that there will be 1-2 hours of team meetings, and 7-9 hours of individual work on this project.

9. If you have a problem with the team work, it needs to be reported here, ideally in a timely manner so the problem can be corrected.

Deadlines:

Due date	Turn in
11:45pm Mon Oct 27	Feedback on other group's analysis
11:45pm Mon Nov 3	Final report available on repo

🛠️ Exercises

There are two pieces in this assignment.

A. Assess other group’s Part 1 report.

• Add the new group members to your Part 1 repo, giving them read access.
• You should also now have access to your new repo. Clone a copy locally, to examine the report.
• On the issues, each group member needs to make an issue with constructive feedback for the group, e.g. one thing that was done very well in the analysis, one suggestion for improving, and the result that was the most interesting.

B. You should compare and contrast the companies environment between the two countries, country from part 1 that you analysed in detail, and the newly chosen country. You can interpret this in any way that you want, but it needs to be defined and the comparison should focus on interesting differences (and possibly similarities). Note that, most marks are awarded for the EDA here, because the IDA for the new country should be similar to part 1.

References

Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing. (n.d.). Osiris. Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing.

Marks

Part	Points
Introduction & Data Description	2
IDA	2
EDA	9
Conclusions	3
Feedback	4

Note that up to 5 mark deduction each for poor “Generative AI Analysis”, “Formatting, Spelling & Grammar”, “Citations”. For example, no use, basic questions only, no link to the script, and no acknowledgment but clearly used. You can lose up to 5 marks if your report is not reproducible, for poorly formatted and written answers. If collaborative contribution is not equal and substantive you could lose up to 100% of mark.

Rubric

To help you complete in your report, below is a rubric to guide you to what we are expecting:

content	text	Excellent (HD)	Very good (D)	Good (C)	Satisfactory (P)	Unsatisfactory (F)
Feedback	Constructive review of other group's analysis	Feedback is original, independent of other feedback provided. It focuses purely on the content, the analysis, suitably recognising good work, and what might be improved. Appreciates the interesting quirks of the report.	Feedback is original, independent of other feedback provided. It focuses primarily on the content, the analysis, suitably recognising good work, and gives useful suggestions might be improved.	Feedback is original, independent of other feedback provided. It focuses mostly on the content, the analysis, and gives useful suggestions might be improved.	Feedback is independent of other feedback provided. It focuses some on the content, the analysis, and gives suggestions might be improved.	Feedback is similar to other feedback already provided. It concentrates on formatting issues, or spelling. It is not constructive or supportive of the groups efforts.
Introduction	Explanation of the problem	Motivates and explains the proble to communicate the background. Outline encourages reading of the other sections. Data sources explained, including limitations that might affect possible analysis and conclusions.	Explanation of problem of interest is VERY clear and provides information about the background. Details of data sources are provided, with limitations affecting analysis.	Explanation of problem is clear and provides information about the background.	Explanation of problem is rudimentary and lacks detail.	Explanation of problem is unclear and/or not shown. There are no suitable expectations to motivate exploration.
Data description	Description of data, number of observations, variables and types. Only include variables used in the analysis.	Description of the variables, as organised into tidy form, nicely formatted as a table. Detailed and concise explanation of data being analysed with a comprehensive overview of the methods that might be needed to check and clean it, including reasons. Original data source, and OpenAQ site and software cited.	Description of the variables, as organised into tidy form, nicely formatted as a table. Original data source, and OpenAQ site and software site cited.	Data description is soundly presented and demonstrates ability to translate tidy data summary into clear data desctipions	Data description is reasonably presented and lists basic understanding of translating tidy data form into data descriptions.	Description of data is unclear and/or not shown and demonstrates no or little understanding.
IDA	Data pre-processing and cleaning	Comprehensive data inspection conducted and explained, with perfect choice of plots and summaries. Not too many, not too few. It is clear the clean data is in a state to be further explored.	Data inspection conducted and explained well, with good choice of plots and summaries. It is clear the clean data is in a state to be further explored.	Data inspection adequate and explained, with some plots and summaries.	Data inspection reasonable with some explanation.	Data inspection inadequate and insufficient explanation.
EDA	Plots and summaries to explore the data, not ncessarily only covering the expectations.	Plots and summaries answer questions raised by the initial expectations, are designed well, and give clear answers along with clear reasoning. All are interesting and surprising. Plots include interactive elements to allow mouseover for more information. Tables are interactive to allow re-sorting.	Plots and summaries answer questions raised by the initial expectations, are designed well, and provide good answers and reasoning. Most are interesting and surprising. Some plots and tables include appropriate interactive elements to allow mouseover for more information.	Plots and summaries mostly answer questions raised by the initial expectations, are provide good answers and reasoning, and some are surprising.	Plots and summaries partially answer questions raised by the initial expectations, providing suitable answers.	Plots and summaries are not well matched to the initial expectations, with little explanation provided.
Conclusions	Concise summary of findings	Concise and clear summary organised to be very fun to read. Strongly supprted by clear rationale and reasoning.	Concise and clear summary organised to be very readble. Rationale and supporting arguments provided.	Concise and clear summary organised to be mostly readable with some rationale and supporting arguments provided.	Clear summary organised to be mostly readable.	Summary doesn't match expectations or analysis.
Collaboration	-	Documentation indicates met, talked effectively and regularly, and all individuals clearly contributed based on the diary. Consistent and regular commits by all team members with informative commit messages.	Documentation indicates met, talked effectively and regularly, and all individuals clearly contributed based on the diary. Consistent and regular commits by all team members with informative commit messages.	Talked effectively, and all individuals clearly contributed based on the diary. Regular commits evenly distributed among team members with informative commit messages.	Group met and indiviuals worked on project based on the diary. Evidence of commits by all team members.	No diary entries or evidence of team work.
GAI	-	GAI used effectively, deeply, and explained, script linked to report	GAI used effectively, script linked to report	GAI used and script linked to report	Shallow use of GAI, script linked to report	Clearly used but no script linked to report
Reproducibility	-	No changes needed for report to reproduce exactly as provided.	Single change needed for report to reproduce exactly as provided.	Just a few changes needed for report to reproduce exactly as provided.	Multiple changes needed for report to reproduce exactly as provided.	Cannot easily make changes for report to reproduce at all.
Spelling/Grammar	Spelling and grammar correct	Writing style is exceptional, scholarly and succinct that is free from spelling, grammar and punctuation errors.	Writing style is scholarly, free from spelling, grammar and punctuation errors.	Writing style is scholarly, but wordy and inconcise. Free from spelling, grammar and punctuation errors.	Writing is scholarly and wordy. Contains some grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors.	Writing is unscholarly. Many grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors.
References	Appropriate citations of sources, literature and software used	The appropriate referencing style has been used consistently, with no errors. Includes citations for software used, and data sources.	The appropriate referencing style has been used consistently, with very few errors, and includes software used, and data sources.	The appropriate referencing style has been used consistently, and only a few citations missing.	The appropriate referencing style has been used much of the time, missing some major sources that were clearly used.	Material used from external sources without citation.