| Code | Criterion | AI | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| RD1 | The research topic is an appropriate Chemistry level for the IB DP Chemistry and abides by the IB DP Guidance of “Asking questions worth answering": | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD2 | Aim is focused in its breadth, investigating at a single relationship. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD3 | Aim wording is specific, so the reader knows exactly what the investigation is about. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD4 | Sufficiently appropriate referenced science background affecting the Dependent Variable (DV) to allow understanding of the investigation. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD5 | Sufficiently appropriate referenced science background explaining how the Independent Variable (IV) will potentially cause changes in the measured Dep | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD6 | Valid hypothesis is justified by logical scientific reasoning and the chemistry is accurate and testable by the method. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD7 | Quantitative 'Measurable' Independent Variable (IV) to be manipulated is stated and used consistently when referenced throughout the report. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD8 | Quantitative Independent Variable (IV) to be manipulated has correct units stated. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD9 | Quantitative Independent Variable (IV) concept is correctly applied to this specific experiment. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD10 | Quantitative Independent Variable (IV) choice of values is justified. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD11 | Quantitative Independent Variable (IV) to be manipulated is increased sequentially by intervals of equal values. Any deviation from this format is jus | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD12 | Quantitative Dependent Variable (DV) to be measured is stated consistently when referenced throughout the report. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD13 | Quantitative Dependent Variable (DV) to be measured has correct units stated. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD14 | Quantitative Dependent Variable (DV) is described and the chemistry is accurate. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD15 | Quantitative Dependent Variable (DV) choice of measurements is justified and the chemistry is accurate. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD16 | All Controlled Variables (CV) are identified in a table, with no obvious omissions. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD17 | Stating in a Controlled Variables table (CV) relevant to this study, with a column identifying the 'Value Maintained'. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD18 | Stating in a table Controlled Variables (CV) relevant to this study, with a column for the 'Potential Effects'. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD19 | Stating in a table Controlled Variables (CV) relevant to this study, with a column for the 'Method of Control'. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 RD20 | Provide a labelled and assembled apparatus diagram that accurately allows measurement as described in the method. (chemix.org) | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD21 | All Equipment, sizes, absolute uncertainties, and amounts required for the experiment are listed or stated in the Equipment List | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD22 | Described the trial runs and giving details of initial problems specific to this experiment, justifying modifications when designing the methodology. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD23 | 3rd person, past tense, step-by-step method to carry out the investigation. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD24 | Method has sufficient procedural fine detail to ensure all variables are controlled and the user can reproduce exact data and conclusions. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD25 | Experiment is planned to contain at least five changes to the independent variable and justification given if this was not possible. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD26 | Health and Safety considerations of all reactants, products and conditions are recorded in a Risk Assessment table. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD27 | Risk Assessment table contains explicitly referenced CLEAPPS Hazcard numbers, referenced for specific chemicals/ concentrations used. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| RD28 | Risk Assessment table contains explicitly referenced CLEAPPS Hazcard numbers, referenced for specific disposal of materials used or produced. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| Code | Criterion | AI | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| 📷 AN1 | Sufficient raw data is recorded in a Results Table, with IV in the first column and DV repeats in subsequent columns to the right. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN2 | All Raw and Processed Results tables are titled with specific detail of its content. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN3 | Data table column headings include 'Measurable' units. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN4 | Data table column headings include Instrumental Uncertainties. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN5 | Data table column headings Instrumental Uncertainties are kept to 1 significant Figure. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN6 | Data tables are formatted adequately, making it easy to read. Running the table over page breaks, very small font and very narrow column sizes are a f | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN7 | All Instrumental Uncertainties from measuring devices are justified. (Analogue = Half the smallest readable digit, Digital = Smallest Readable digit, | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN8 | The Decimal Points of raw and processed data are consistent with Instrumental Uncertainties on measurements | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN9 | Qualitative observations Before, During, and After are recorded that will assist with interpretation. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN10 | Qualitative observations are backed up by photographic evidence of the experiment | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN11 | Attempts are made to repeat measurements, until they are within the Instrumental Uncertainty limits set out by the apparatus. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN12 | Justification is given as to the number of repeat data measurements recorded. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN13 | Anomalous data points are identified in the recorded data, and removal justified. [No stdv mathematical requirement]. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN14 | If the experiment requires any processing through additional equations, then any necessary calculations in order to process data are complete and with | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN15 | The specific 'First' chosen change in IV Value is stated, for which the subsequent raw DV data will be used to calculate the Mean Average DV in a Work | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN16 | Give one worked example of the 'First' IV Data Points to calculate mean average, using [Sum of Values/Number of Values= Mean Average] formula. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN17 | Give one worked example to calculate the Uncertainty in Repeats is calculated from the 'First IV' Repeated Data Points data using [(Max-min)/2] formul | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN18 | The Significant Figures of the Uncertainty in Repeats is kept consistent with the apparatus (1 sig fig). | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN19 | Calculate a Mean Average % Instrumental Uncertainty from both IV and DV data using the following formula: [Instrumental uncertainty/Mean change in IV | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN20 | Calculate a Mean Propagated % Instrumental Uncertainty calculated by [Mean Average IV % uncertainty + Mean Average DV % Uncertainty]. Addition of all | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN21 | Mean Propagated % Instrumental Uncertainty is calculated using the lowest numbers of Decimal Places on any of the different Measuring Device Instrumen | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN22 | Mean Propagated % Instrumental Uncertainty is quoted to 1 significant Figure | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN23 | An appropriate sized, scatter graph. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN24 | Scatter graph has a Title specifically stating the Independent and Dependent Variables been compared. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN25 | Scatter graph contains major grid lines. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN26 | Scatter graph contains labelled IV vs DV axis labels. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN27 | Scatter graph contains IV vs DV 'Measurable' axis units. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN28 | Scatter graph contains IV vs DV axis Instrumental Uncertainty values. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN29 | Scatter graph contains uses crosses to plot data points. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN30 | A scatter graph trendline gradient equation shows the Final Relationship is given. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN31 | Scatter graph trendline has a R2 value given. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN32 | Horizontal 'Uncertainty bars' for IV are added to the scatter graph, using the IV Instrumental Uncertainty, to graphically show the actual values of t | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN33 | Vertical 'Uncertainty bars' for DV are added to the scatter graph to graphically show the calculated values of the Uncertainty in Repeats. Any changes | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN34 | A Maximium gradient trendline is calculated from the lowest vertical uncertainty bar and highest horizontal uncertainty bar on the first data point, t | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN35 | A Minimum gradient trendline is calculated from the highest vertical uncertainty bar and lowest horizontal uncertainty bar on the first data point, to | 0 | Not returned by API |
| 📷 AN36 | Trendline equations for the Maximum and Minimum gradient trendlines are shown on the graph. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN37 | Uncertainty in Final Relationship is calculated by [(Maximum gradient value-minimum gradient value)/2 = Uncertainty in Final Relationship] formula. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN38 | State Uncertainty in Final Relationship units, using [Y axis units/X axis units] formula. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN39 | State Uncertainty in Final Relationship to 1 Significant Figure | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN40 | Convert Uncertainty in Final Relationship into %Uncertainty in Final Relationship using the [Uncertainty in Final Relationship/Final Relationship grad | 0 | Not returned by API |
| AN41 | State %Uncertainty in Final Relationship to 1 Signficant Figure | 0 | Not returned by API |
| Code | Criterion | AI | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| CO1 | The research question is answered by describing the IV-DV relationship gradient trend. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| CO2 | The IV-DV relationship gradient equation is explicitly stated. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| CO3 | The IV-DV relationship gradient units are quoted in the conclusion. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| CO4 | Comment on gradient R2 value in terms of strength of correlation. (weak <0.3, moderate 0.3-0.7, strong >0.7) | 0 | Not returned by API |
| CO5 | Accuracy of relationship is justified based on cited research of a similar area of study. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| CO6 | Hypothesis is re-stated and compared with final results and commented on in terms of trend and speculation as to the underlying chemistry causing this | 0 | Not returned by API |
| CO7 | % Uncertainty in Final Relationship from min-max trendlines is re-stated in the Conclusion. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| CO8 | The magnitude of the %Uncertainty in Final Relationship gradient to potentially change the trend direction and invalidate the conclusion is commented | 0 | Not returned by API |
| CO9 | Any concerns making the result invalid have been commented on. If the experiment has no obvious problems in its logic, leading to an invalid conclusio | 0 | Not returned by API |
| Code | Criterion | AI | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| EV1 | Strengths of methodology are highlighted, based on trial run modifications if possible. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| EV2 | Equipment choice is evaluated to reduce Instrumental Uncertainties. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| EV3 | Comparison of a Mean Propagated % Instrumental Uncertainty vs % Uncertainty in Final Relationship from gradients is stated using [Mean Average IV % un | 0 | Not returned by API |
| EV4 | Major Methodological improvements suggested to improve accuracy and validity by identifying and removing specific Systematic errors that have become a | 0 | Not returned by API |
| EV5 | Weaknesses in method are stated in a table with a column for discussion of ‘Relative significance', with no obvious omissions. Minor = negligible eff | 0 | Not returned by API |
| EV6 | Weaknesses in method are stated in a table with a column for ‘Error Type' and are correctly identified, with Systematic Errors only producing errors o | 0 | Not returned by API |
| EV7 | Weaknesses in method are stated in a table with a column for ‘Problems'. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| EV8 | Weaknesses in method are stated in a table with a column for ‘Suggested Solutions'. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| EV9 | Improvements suggest increased Repeated data points and removal of outliers to reduce Random Errors, causing smaller Uncertainty in Repeats. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| EV10 | Improvements suggested to expand the IV data range are made. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| EV11 | Improvements suggested to narrow the IV data intervals are made. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| EV12 | Minor Methodological improvements suggested to improve on the accuracy of the experiment. | 0 | Not returned by API |
| EV13 | Suggested extension investigations, that will adapt and improve this specific investigation are proposed. | 0 | Not returned by API |