archive-edu.com » EDU » C » COLOSTATE.EDU

Total: 1507

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Use of Details
    abstract you are writing informative or descriptive the complexity of the paper the word limit for the abstract and the purposes you imagine readers of your abstract have for reading Complexity of the Paper An abstract of a five page progress report is likely to be shorter than an abstract for a 100 page Master s thesis mainly because a long paper will include more main ideas not just details Keep in mind your readers and their reasons for reading your abstract Focus your abstract on main ideas and provide only those details that are crucial for readers to understand your main points Word Limit for the Abstract Some publications limit the length of abstracts to no more than 75 words Others allow abstracts of complex documents to run up to 350 words Be sure to check the publication s guidelines If it has a low word limit concentrate on capturing only main ideas from your paper Don t try to cut a 200 word abstract down to 125 words by simply cutting connecting words articles etc Even the shortest abstracts need to be readable not telegraphic Readers Purposes If you re abstracting a report for technical managers more detail

    Original URL path: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/page.cfm?pageid=1273&guideid=59 (2015-10-15)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Revising and Editing
    Style Abstracts in Specific Disciplines Civil Engineering English Neurobiology Geology Resources Print Friendly Format About this Guide Contributors Citation Abstracts Revising and Editing W hen you work from your own texts abstracts are usually easy to draft After all most writers begin by cutting and pasting from the text itself But abstracts can be tricky to revise and edit particularly if you need to reach a low word count In

    Original URL path: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/page.cfm?pageid=1274&guideid=59 (2015-10-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Civil Engineering
    in order to provide a complex that will better serve the campus and the community This facility will not only improve the performing arts programs on campus but will encourage students and community members to attend more cultural events in Fort Collins The capacity of the new facility will exceed that of existing structures on campus and the quality of sound and aesthetics will be improved Some of the features included are a large performing hall a coffee shop a banquet hall and a recording studio The total area of the complex is 56 500 square feet split into three levels Instructor Comments This abstract summarizes the accomplishments of the project and what it will do It also summarizes some of the actual design and indicates that it s going to include a performing hall coffee shop banquet hall and recording studio The writing however could be a little tighter in my opinion The first sentence looks like it s around 20 words long First of all the expression will better service the campus and the community doesn t mean anything What does better serve mean A better choice might be MASK Engineering has designed a new Performing Arts Center that will meet the needs of the theater community or something more specific The second sentence is typical It gives the particular vehicle for doing the programs However it implies that the facility improves programs and I m not sure that s quite the right subject for this sentence Furthermore there s no point to the word but here There s no contrast here so this is a grammatical problem This kind of problem can be avoided through careful reading asking what each sentence accomplishes The abstract gets stronger after this The capacity of the new facility will exceed that

    Original URL path: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/page.cfm?pageid=1280&guideid=59 (2015-10-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • English
    Journal of Advanced Composition 16 3 389 406 This paper argues that writing across the curriculum has failed to consider how its practices and theories serve to inscribe students within normalized discourses As scholars such as Susan McLeod Anne Herrington and Charles Moran begin to re think the way writing across the curriculum programs have situated themselves within composition theory an intriguing disparity has presented itself between writing to learn and learning to write As McLeod points out these two approaches to WAC which she designates the cognitive and the rhetorical respectively exist in most programs simultaneously despite their radically different epistemological assumptions This paper suggests however that despite the two approaches seeming epistemological differences they work toward a similar goal the accommodation or inscription of student subjects into the various disciplinary strands of academic discourse From a poststructural perspective the goals of both these models function as a coherent technology of subject production Writing to learn exercises provide a discursive space in which students learn to write themselves as subjects of the discourse using the writing space to practice an integration of self with a disciplinary subjectivity The rhetorical model reinforces such an integration even more strongly providing explicit instruction in how the discursive subject must write herself in order to produce effective prose which mirrors the texts of other speaking subjects of the discourse In sum both approaches to WAC are subject to the same description and critique of how academic discourse seeks to inscribe students as subjects that has been forged against composition instruction in English departments e g Schilb Clifford Faigley Ironically in WAC we have presumed a clear mission for writing instruction that is not nearly so evident in our own approach to advanced literacy The paper concludes then by offering yet a third model

    Original URL path: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/page.cfm?pageid=1281&guideid=59 (2015-10-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Neurobiology
    synapses and circuits is daunting to those seeking to understand the neural basis of consciousness and intellect Pervading obstacles are lack of knowledge of the detailed three dimensional 3 D organization of even a simple neural system and the paucity of large scale biologically relevant computer simulations We use high performance graphics workstations and supercomputers to study the 3 D organization of gravity sensors as a prototypic architecture foreshadowing more complex systems Scaled down simulations run on a Silicon Graphics workstation and scaled up three dimensional versions run on the Cray Y MP and CM5 supercomputers To assist this research we developed generalized computer based methods for semiautomated 3 D reconstruction of this tissue from transmission electron microscope TEM serial sections and for simulations of the reconstructed neurons and circuits Sections are digitized directly from the TEM Contours of objects are traced on the computer screen Mosaicking images into sections registration and visualization are automated The same grids generated to connect contours for viewing objects provide tesselated surfaces for 1 D 2 D and 3 D simulations of neuronal functioning Finite element analysis of prism or segment volumes and color coding are used to track current spread after synapse activation The biologically accurate simulation is reducible to a symbolic model that mimics the flow of information processing Discharge patterns are displayed as spike trains The symbolic model can be converted to an electronic circuit for potential implementation as a chip The reconstructions can also be rendered in visual sonic and tactile virtual media Using these methods we demonstrated that gravity sensors are organized for parallel distributed processing of information They have non modular receptive fields that are organized into overlapping dynamic cell assemblies These provide a basis for functional degeneracy and graceful degradation The sensors have two intrinsic microcircuits that

    Original URL path: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/page.cfm?pageid=1282&guideid=59 (2015-10-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Geology
    earthquake M 6 7 triggered more than 11 000 landslides over an area of about 10 000 km Most of the landslides were concentrated in a 1 000 km area that includes the Santa Susana Mountains and the mountains north of the Santa Clara River valley We mapped landslides triggered by the earthquake in the field and from 1 60 000 scale aerial photography provided by the U S Air Force and taken the morning of the earthquake these were subsequently digitized and plotted in a GIS based format as shown on the accompanying maps which also are accessible via Internet Most of the triggered landslides were shallow 1 5 m highly disrupted falls and slides in weakly cemented Tertiary to Pleistocene clastic sediment Average volumes of these types of landslides were less than 1 000 m but many had volumes exceeding 100 000 m Many of the larger disrupted slides traveled more than 50 m and a few moved as far as 200 m from the bases of steep parent slopes Deeper 5 m rotational slumps and block slides numbered in the hundreds a few of which exceeded 100 000 m in volume The largest triggered landslide was a

    Original URL path: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/page.cfm?pageid=1283&guideid=59 (2015-10-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Authors and Contributors
    Create an Account Home Writing Guides Writing Abstracts Authors and Contributors Authors and Contributors The following individuals have contributed to the development of this guide Donna LeCourt Kate Kiefer Luann Barnes Mike Palmquist and Tom Siller Tweet HELP SITE INDEX ABOUT THIS SITE CONTACT Writing CSU is an open access educational Web site supported by Colorado State University Content on this site is Copyright 1993 2015 Colorado State University and

    Original URL path: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/contrib.cfm (2015-10-15)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Authors and Contributors
    Citation Information Authors and Contributors The following citation is provided for this guide Donna LeCourt Kate Kiefer Luann Barnes Mike Palmquist and Tom Siller 1994 2012 Abstracts Writing CSU Colorado State University Available at http writing colostate edu guides guide cfm guideid 59 Tweet HELP SITE INDEX ABOUT THIS SITE CONTACT Writing CSU is an open access educational Web site supported by Colorado State University Content on this site is

    Original URL path: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/citation.cfm (2015-10-15)
    Open archived version from archive



  •