Like last year we held a competition for the best student poster to complement the festivities around the CTIT symposium. Unlike last year we asked students to submit an abstract in advance so that the jury was able to prepare for the task at hand. Our distinguished guests Bart van Arem, Inald Lagendijk, Mark Overmars, Maarten van Steen, and Peter van der Stok were kind enough to act as the jury. My own role was purely to facilitate the task of the jury; I did not have a say in the selection of the posters.
Even with the abstract to hand, time was too short to judge the research behind the posters. Another complication is the fact that the jury had to compare work of beginning PhD students and students who are about to graduate, and work by very small and very large teams, as well as work in a vast range of areas.
The jury has based its verdict on the criteria published for the competition i.e. clarity, novelty, relevance to the theme of the symposium (smart environments), attractiveness and demonstrated appreciation of related work.
The jury regrets that valuable research must have been dismissed in the process, but unfortunately given the constraints, that was inevitable.
The jury agreed to award three prizes of 1000, 500 and 250 EURO. To acknowledge the fact that all winners are members of a larger team, the jury suggests that the prize money be divided amongst the team members.
The third prize of 250 EURO goes to Ricardo Neisse because his poster is clear and the topic is relevant. However, the jury would have appreciated an abstract of the same quality as the poster.
The second prize of 500 EURO goes to Harold van Heerde because his work addresses an important problem, and his abstract was one of the best. The jury had some concerns about the usability of the approach but considering that the work is in its early stages the jury did not held that against the student.
The first prize of 1000 EURO goes to Anne Remke because her poster is clear, the problem is relevant to smart systems, and her abstract is very well written; it would even have been excellent with an illustration.
Finally the jury would like to commend the work of team Abrahamse on the Psychologists toolbox. The poster clearly represents the work of a research group, and as such is of a different nature than the other posters. Therefore the jury felt that a commendation would be more appropriate than a prize. However the members of the jury learned a lot from the poster and appreciate that CTIT takes multidisciplinary very seriously.
The jury thanks all the students who have spent countless hours creating their posters, and wishes them well in the pursuit of their research. The jury believes that the attention the students received from the attendants of the symposium was both well deserved and appreciated by the students.
I thank the members of the Jury on behalf of CTIT for their efforts to judge the 16 posters fairly and quickly.