# Module 23 Activity Worksheet

**Module:** Module 23: Posters, Abstracts, and Conferences  
**Duration:** 4 hours  
*Generated from the module page. Edit `modules/module23.md`, not this file.*

---

## Capability target

Submit a conference-ready abstract, produce a coherent poster draft, and deliver a defensible 90-second pitch with clear claim boundaries. Operationally: your abstract spends its word budget on evidence rather than motivation, a stranger can find your core result on the poster within ten seconds from two meters away, and you leave the session with at least two named follow-ups you initiated yourself.

You are done when you can demonstrate this, not when you have filled in every box below.

---

## Before you start

Check that you have:

- [ ] At least one completed analysis or mini-project
- [ ] Basic scientific writing experience

Bring one question you already have about this topic. Write it here so you can check
at the end whether it was answered:

> My question:

## Questions this module answers

Keep these in view. At the end, answer each in one sentence.

1. What makes an abstract competitive and technically honest?
   - Your answer:
2. How should poster design reflect inferential structure?
   - Your answer:
3. Which conference norms should be taught explicitly?
   - Your answer:

---

## The task

**Scenario:** You have one accepted poster slot and must communicate your connectomics result to mixed audience members. Two of the people who stop are specialists who will ask about segmentation quality; one is a program director who will ask what it means; one is a peer at your own stage who wants your code.

1. Produce one abstract against the sentence budget and one poster wireframe tested at two meters.
2. Deliver a 90-second pitch to a timer, twice, cutting on the second pass.
3. Respond to two audience questions, including one about reconstruction quality.
4. Draft one follow-up outreach message that sends something rather than asking for something.

### What you hand in

- Abstract draft
- Poster wireframe
- Pitch script
- Follow-up message template
- A named target list of five people and one question for each

---

## Working checklist

Tick as you go. If you skip a step, write why — a skipped step with a stated reason
is a decision; a skipped step without one is a gap.

- [ ] Distill the project into one claim hierarchy: one headline claim, at most two supporting claims, one limitation attached to each.
- [ ] Draft the 250-word abstract against the sentence budget, then delete every sentence that does not help a reviewer judge credibility or significance.
- [ ] Check the abstract names species, region, imaging modality, segmentation pipeline, version or materialization, proofreading state, and n. If any is missing, a reviewer will assume the worst case.
- [ ] Build the poster wireframe around three evidence panels, placing the headline finding in the upper third where it is readable at two meters.
- [ ] Write and rehearse the 90-second and 3-minute versions. The 90-second version is not the 3-minute version spoken quickly; it is a different script with the background removed.
- [ ] Prepare a follow-up template and a target list of five to eight people you want to talk to, with one specific question for each.
- [ ] Run critique for clarity, limitations, and the professional interaction plan, and revise before the submission deadline rather than after acceptance.

---

## Evidence and reasoning

Fill one row per claim you make in your artifact. A claim without a limitation is
not finished.

| # | Claim | Evidence (what specifically) | Limitation / what would change my mind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | | |
| 2 | | | |
| 3 | | | |

**Confidence.** For your main claim, mark one and say why:

- [ ] **High** — two or more independent lines of evidence agree
- [ ] **Medium** — one strong line, or several that share a weakness
- [ ] **Uncertain** — the deciding evidence is not available to me

Why:

**One alternative I considered and rejected**, and the reason:

---

## Misconception self-check

These are the errors this module is designed to prevent. Confirm you did not make
them, or note where you nearly did:

- [ ] I did not assume: A strong motivating paragraph can compensate for thin results.
- [ ] I did not assume: Dense text signals that the work is thorough.
- [ ] I did not assume: Good science speaks for itself and networking is optional decoration.
- [ ] I did not assume: If the conversation went well, the other person will follow up.

---

## Session timing (facilitator reference)

| Time | Segment |
|---|---|
| 00:00-08:00 | Framing + exemplar abstract |
| 08:00-20:00 | Abstract sprint (individual) |
| 20:00-32:00 | Poster wireframe build (pairs) |
| 32:00-44:00 | 90-second pitch practice |
| 44:00-54:00 | Q&A and networking simulation |
| 54:00-60:00 | Revision checklist + submission plan |

---

## Rubric

Score yourself before anyone else does. Where you fall short, name the specific next
action rather than a general intention.

- **Minimum pass:** abstract claims are evidence-grounded and name dataset, version, and n; poster layout surfaces core result and limitation; the pitch communicates method, result, and limit within time.
- **Strong performance:** handles Q&A with precise uncertainty language, adapts to the audience in front of them without changing the evidentiary standard, and produces follow-ups that are specific, sent within days, and initiated rather than inherited from a supervisor.
- **Common failure to flag:** overstuffed abstracts with missing quantitative anchors, posters organized by chronology instead of argument, and overconfident responses to unresolved technical questions. Also flag a learner whose entire target list consists of people their supervisor already knows.

**My self-assessment:**

- Strongest part of my work, and the evidence for that:
- Weakest part, and the specific next action:

---

## Exit prompt

Write a 5-sentence mini-abstract including question, method with dataset version, result with one number, limitation, and implication. Then count how many words went to the field and how many to your result; if the first number is larger, rewrite the opening sentence.

**Your answer:**

---

## Peer review (swap worksheets)

Reviewing someone else's reasoning is the fastest way to see the gaps in your own.
Assess the **evidence quality**, not whether you agree with the conclusion.

- Is every claim paired with specific evidence?
- Is at least one limitation stated, and is it a real one?
- Is the confidence level justified by the number of *independent* evidence lines?
- One thing this person did better than me:
- One question I would ask them:

---

*Module page: `/modules/module23/` · Session kit: `/teaching/sessions/module23/` · [Facilitator guide](/teaching/facilitator-guide/)*