Bibliography

Shehzad, W. (2010). Announcement of the principal findings and value addition in computer science research papers. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos (AELFE), 19, 97-118

In this research article, Shehzad discusses her findings about the differences between the introduction in computer science RAs and the rhetorical pattern defined in CARS model. And based on her analysis toward selected articles, she believes that the steps of “announcing principal findings” and “stating the value” are constantly included in the introduction sections of computer science RAs; therefore, it would be probably better to combine these two steps and make them obligatory in CARS model. 

Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article introductions in software engineering. IEEE Transaction On Professional Communication, 42(1), 38-46

In Anthony's research article, a detailed analysis about the utilization of CARS model in software engineering has been made. According to the analysis, Anthony reaches the conclusion that although CARS model is generally followed by RAs in software engineering, there are still some variances existing in some RAs that do not stick to CARS model. Specifically, in certain field, some obligatory steps in CARS model are frequently absence. Thus, the author points out the importance of understanding the range of applicability and limitations of each move and steps in the CARS model. 

Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of computer science research articles. English for Special Purposes, 18(2), 139-160

In this paper, the author points out that the organisation of computer science RAs does not strictly follow the traditional IMRD organisation. The term of “Method”, “Result” and ‘Conclusion” are sometimes missing or replaced by more specific subtitles. Besides, the author also points out that the CARS model is not applicable for every computer science RAs, for certain steps are organised in a different way. Finally, the author makes the conclusion that “RAs in computer science still lack a systematic pattern.” (p. 156), and a more refined structural model should be built. 

data commentary

(I can not remember which RA I used for this blog @-@)

Table 1 shows a brief comparison between traditional L1 cache scheme and newly emerged approach with cache Locking technique. As we can see, the hit ratio of the proposed strategy is higher than the traditional approach. Besides, it is also notable that a maximum hit ratio, 0.946, would be achieved when 25% L1 cache is locked. Therefore, it is observed that the new scheme with cache locking technique offers higher hit ratio, better performance, than the random scheme.  

Figure 2 illustrates how total power consumption decreases when L1 locked cache size increased. It is noted that, the power consumption of proposed block selection scheme is  lower than traditional randomly selected blocks for all cases. 

Table 3 shows the condition of sales about two models, 10.A33 and 12.C19. As shown in the Table, we can observe that although both of the models experienced dramatic increase in their sales from 2009 to 2012, Model 12.C19 still has a better sale in general. And we can easily conclude that the market demand of Model 12.C19 is relative high, comparing to another model.

Analysis about Introduction

The first article I select is "A Study of Branch Prediction Strategies" written by James E.Smith. In the introduction part of this article, all three moves are included, and it is clear to find out that all three moves are orgnized in a traditional order. 

The first move, highlighted in red, introduces the main topic("it is well known that... ") and provides a brief introduction about the common ways to reduce the delay in branch technology("one can attempt to ...").

Then, in the second move, shown in blue, the author mentions the problems and limitations using common approaches("Unfortunately, a wrong prediction may lead to...").

Finally, in the third move, the author provides an introduction about the focus of this paper and a brief outline. ("This paper discusses...").

• It is well known that in a highly parallel computer system, branch instructions can break the smooth flow of instruction fetching and execution. This results in delay, because a branch that is taken changes the location of instruction fetches and because the issuing of instructions must often wait until conditional branch decisions are made.
  
• To reduce delay, one can attempt to predict the direction that a branch instruction will take and begin fetching, decoding, or even issuing instructions before the branch decision is made. Unfortunately, a wrong prediction may lead to more delay if, for example, instructions on the correct branch path need to be fetched or partially executed instructions on the wrong path need to be purged. The disparity between the delay for a correctly predicted branch and an incorrectly predicted branch points to the need for accurate branch prediction strategies. 
  
• This paper discusses branch prediction strategies with the goal of maximising the likelihood of correctly predicting the outcome of a branch. First, previously suggested branch prediction techniques are discussed. Owing to the large number of variations and configurations, only a few representative strategies have been singled out for detailed study, although several are mentioned. Then, new techniques are proposed that provide more accuracy, less cost, and more flexibility than methods used currently.
  
• Because of the wide variation in branching behaviour between different applications, different programming languages, and even individual programs, there is no good analytic model for studying branch prediction. For this reason, we used instruction trace data to measure experimentally the accuracy of branch prediction strategies. 

The second article is "Computer Interconnection Structures: Taxonomy,Characteristics, and Examples" written by George A. Anderson and E. Douglas Jensen. In the introduction part of this article, all three moves are included and orgnized in a traditional order. 

The first move, highlighted in red, introduces the main topic("one of the most active areas in computer science architecture is...") and provides a brief introduction of the popular concepts in this field, such as "distributed processor" and "distributed-function computers".

Then, in the second move, shown in blue, the author mentions that there is not enough comparison being made to evaluate the differences between each designs and approaches("A discouraging aspect of this activity, however, is the almost total lack of...").

Finally, in the third move, the author provides an introduction about the focus of this paper and a brief outline. ("Our paper is an attempt to begin filling this need.")

• Currently, one of the most active areas in computer architecture is the interconnection of computers to form systems which are called "distributed processors," "distributed-function computers," "computer networks," and similar names. These systems range in organization from two processors sharing a memory to large numbers of relatively independent computers connected over geographically long distances. A discouraging aspect of this activity, however, is the almost total lack of published information describing the rationale for various designs, or comparing the results achieved by various approaches. In part, the authors believe this condition exists because there has been no common context in which such discussion could take place, no set of design issues, no list of system characteristics to be traded off, and, in fact, not even a common nomenclature for system identification. Our paper is an attempt to begin filling this need. In it we present a naming scheme, or taxonomy, for identifying various systems of interconnected computers, and we discuss design decisions and system characteristics which we believe are germane to these architectures.
  
• The authors know of only one other general taxonomy for interconnected computers and that is a brief one (having different dimensions) with few system characteristics and no nomenclature [$1~.w74]. Some interconnection topology issues are also considered in [CHEN74] and [THtTR72], al- though these are primarily concerned with the next lower level of the interconnection design--control and communication. One level beneath these are a number of papers dealing with the design of "explicit" switches, such as crossbars [PIPe75] and permutation/sorting networks [THVR 74]. In addition, there is a wide variety of digital...

The third article is "Implementation of Precise Interrupts in Pipelines Processors" written by James E. Smith and Andrew R. Pleszkun. In the introduction part of this article, all three moves are included and orgnized in a traditional order. 

The first move, starting with "Most current computer architectures are based on a sequential model of program execution in which an architectural program counter sequences through instructions one-by-one...", defines the key term, interrupts in Pipelined Processors, and provides a basic procedure about how it works.

Then, in the second move, "If the saved process state is inconsistent with the sequential architectural model and does not satisfy the above conditions, then the interrupt is imprecise.", the author introduces a limitation of current approach in certain situation. (language signal: "If... is inconsistent, then ... is imprecise").

Finally, in the third move, the author provides an introduction about the focus of this paper and a brief outline. ("This paper describes(language signal) and compares ways of implementing precise interrupts in pipelined processors...").

Conclusion: Although some of them have subtle differences in move one, all three papers I have found are strictly following CARS model. 

Reference

Book:

Holzke, M., & Stachowitz, S. (2014). SQL database for beginners. CT: LearnToProgram, Incorporated.

Section of Online Document:

Engelshcall, R. S. (1997). Module mod_rewrite: URL Rewriting Engine. In Apache HTTP Server version 1.3 documentation. Retrieved from http://httpd.apache.org/docs/1.3/mod/mod_rewrite.html

Journal:

Lai, Z., & Varma, A. H. (2015). Noncompact and slender circular CFT members: Experimental database, analysis, and design. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 106, 220-233.

Summery for "A Sustainable Future"

According to the speaker, Alex Steffen, though the society we are living in has been extremely prosperous and dynamic, it has some major flaws that need to be improved in order to be more sustainable. The negative impacts caused by the ecological footprint of our society, the high tension in living resources brought by the unfairness in regional development, and the desires to build a more prosperous society from younger generation would probably lead our planet to a worst-case scenario. Then, the speaker also believes that if proper methods being applied, we can change the situation. Firstly, we can change the dynamic of our society by increasing its density, and once we manage to shorten the distance between each person, it would be possible to make the society a smart place with the help of information technology. Besides, for those newly emerged megacities in developing counties, we can use the idea of leapfrogging to spend resources in developing latest technologies directly instead of starting from old technologies. Secondly, we can also utilize new tools for collaboration, in technology, culture, politics and even in games. Besides, the creativity, cultural explosion, and education effects brought by all these tools respectively, would make our society more prosperous. As a conclusion, the speaker believes that if we add all these elements together, we can get a Bright Green future.

Comparison of Academic and Informal Writing

When it comes to English writing, readers’ expectation in both language efficiency and preciseness has distinguished academic writing, as a completely separate style, from informal writing. In the following blog, a comparison of academic writing and informal writing will be highlighted in three aspects, Sentence Mechanics and Grammar, Rhetorical Structure, and Style.

Firstly, the requirement in objectiveness calls for a minimized dependency on personal construction. As the class note indicates, the use of “I” and expressions of feeling should be avoided to a great extent, and academic prose, as a whole, are required to be kept as impersonal as possible. To illustrate this point, we need look no further than the subject choices in the two articles. In the informal writing sample, the high dependency of “I”, as subjects, constantly reminds readers the purpose of this article, which is more appropriate to be considered as an expression of personal idea rather than an introduction of academic research. On the contrary, the higher priority given to the topic related nouns, as subject, brings the academic writing sample a more neutral stand and higher lexical density. 

Secondly, I think the Rhetorical Structures of the two articles are also different. For the informal writing, the paragraphs are organized in a parallel way, in which each idea is completely separate from others, and there is no logical connection between each of them. For example you can consider the subtopic in “Initiative” and “Tenacity” as two independent suggestions from the author. As a result, readers would feel easier to read each paragraph as a single idea, but would find it difficult to locate the information they are looking for. However, the academic article is written in a more logical way, and the progression of idea, like a guidepost, provides readers a clear structural pattern, from which readers can easily put their focus on the information they really care and skip the parts they have less interest in. For example, if you are a businessman who is looking for some research paper which can improve your supply chain, you can put your focus on the conclusion, or if you are a graduate student doing similar research, you can skip the introduction and go directly to the model description to see whether there is some useful idea in this paper, from which you can benefit your own research.

What’s more, the two articles are also different in style. In the informal writing article, a lot of colloquialisms and casual expressions are used to develop author’s idea. For example in the “Why get a Ph.D. part”, the author says “The most basic question every Ph.D. student must know the answer to is: 'Why the hell am I doing this?'". Through this question, the author provides readers a chance to think about the topic by themselves, which not only effectively draws readers’ attention to author’s idea, but also greatly enhances the connection between author and readers. However, in the academic writing, the ideas are conveyed like in one direction, and no such communication left between author and readers. All the information and language are provided as precise as possible.

Personally, I think the academic writing, as a more functional writing style, distinguishes itself from informal writing in its writing purpose. And all its characteristics serve to a basic idea that makes the expression of ideas more precise, efficient and objective.

Welcome to my blog! I'm Pei He, or you can call me hp. Nice to meet you all in the EAP class. Academic writing skills, including how to organize an academic paper, how to use reference properly and how to use the formal language to convey my idea, are the topics I am interested in about EAP class.