• Replies 11 replies
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 614 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Writing an abstract- does this meet the assessment criteria?

hypercolius

Hi,

I'm a 22-year old physics student with ASD. Making writing concise, 250-word abstracts with specific criteria an absolute nightmare. As well as me being only allowed to present this orally and not on a poster. 

I applied for two conferences this year with my research. One (BCUR 2025) accepted it, and so did the extremely competitive Posters in Parliament event. One (ICUR) did not. They sent me the abstract to review, which I did. It needs to meet the following criteria:

www.icurportal.com/.../

Here is my abstract and title. Do you think it meets the criteria? Would you find it interesting? 

Identifying Magnetic Activity Cycles in Sun-Like Stars: An Analysis of p-Mode Oscillations and Flares for Stellar Modeling, ‘Earth 2.0’ Candidate Selection, and Power Grid Protection 

"

Many stars, including our Sun, exhibit long-term variations in their magnetic fields, known as “magnetic activity cycles.” These cycles produce energetic flares, sometimes hurling hazardous jets of material into space, and influence the star’s natural sound waves (“p-mode” oscillations). Understanding how these fields arise remains a central question in astrophysics, yet the consequences of extreme flare events—entire cities losing power— can be felt at home. 

Our project therefore asks: do these cycles appear in underutilized data from star observations? How might they inform predictions of habitability or hazardous flares?

We studied 160 Sun-like stars, analyzing changes in p-mode frequencies and detecting flares, both key indicators of elevated magnetic activity. Nine stars revealed significant oscillation shifts, and a further 10% exhibited abundant flaring. One star simultaneously displayed p-mode variations and intense flares, a highly unexpected result since it is assumed that flares suppress p-modes. We also uncovered a possible link between these oscillations and brightness variability—a major finding if confirmed.​

By revealing how magnetic cycles manifest in stellar environments, such results can be used to evaluate exoplanet habitability—given flares can evaporate planetary atmospheres—and protect against threats to Earth’s infrastructure if a Carrington-scale event reoccurs. Such a flare might cause global power outages, potentially requiring years to restore. Studying these cycles helps mitigate these risks and refine understanding of how stellar magnetic fields are generated. This work opens paths for future research to expand on these findings, providing deeper insights into the magnetic activity cycles of Sun-like stars.

"

Parents

  • (My musings on reading the draft abstract - apologies in advance; if I have segued too far off topic).

    Picking up on "an analysis" ...

    Building upon Jiménez et al. (1988b) and then Libbrecht (1990); I wondered whether the observations of a possible link between these oscillations and brightness variability might necessitate some further comment on the future direction with regard to potential exploration / challenge associated with the interpretation (direction of travel / progress (or lack thereof) during the intervening 35 years since Libbrecht, increased likelihood due to modern / impending developments and capabilities etc.).

    Discussion - Libbrecht (1990):

    "While the observations of solar p-mode surface brightness
    oscillations are straightforward and not too difficult, the same
    cannot be said for their interpretation. This is because the
    brightness oscillations depend on the detailed way that radi-
    ative transfer is changed in the presence of the p-mode oscillations. Several such calculations have been attempted in the
    past, primarily to determine if the p-modes are linearly stable
    or overstable (see a review by Libbrecht 1988c and references
    therein). The results have unfortunately been very ambiguous,
    and the question of the linear stability of the p-modes remains
    without a satisfactory answer. The brightness/velocity power
    ratio will probably have to wait, along with other data like the
    measured mode linewidths, until a perfected treatment of the
    p-modes in the solar atmosphere can provide their detailed
    explanation."

    Jiménez, A., Pallé, P. L., Roca Cortés, T., Anderson, N. B., Domingo, V., Jones, A., Álvarez, M., and Ledezma, E. 1988b, in Seismology of the Sun and Sun-like Stars, ed. E. J. Rolfe (Noordwijk : ESA), p. 163.

    Title: Comparison of solar p-mode oscillations in surface brightness and velocity.  Authors: Libbrecht, K. G.  Journal: Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 359, Aug. 10, 1990, p. 232-234.

    https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/1990ApJ...359..232L/ADS_PDF 

    ...must now be time for me to make myself a coffee!

  • in reply to DormouseAtRest_25

    So mentioning key studies in the area in the abstract might strengthen it... ? :-)

  • in reply to Phased

    https://www.aps.org/careers/advice/best-practices-titled-abstracts

    - Previous or relevant references (you must select the most appropriate / more up to date ones, as my comments were merely a "for instance").

    - Plus, what might be involved in the interpretation part of the analysis (would it be possible to do now with further work, or what might it take in the future / what further developments would be required in order to achieve the interpretation analysis?).

  • in reply to Phased

    Hehe notwithstanding the irony of doing so I asked Ai to come up with and answer to the last point: 

    For which the answer is:

    "When using AI to generate or refine an abstract, consider the following legal and ethical aspects:

    1. Disclosure Requirements

    • Academic Journals & Conferences: Some journals (e.g., Nature, Elsevier) require disclosure if AI-assisted writing tools were used. Others may prohibit AI-generated content that is not independently verified. Check submission guidelines.
    • Grant Applications & Institutional Policies: Some funding bodies (e.g., NSF, EU Horizon) may have rules about AI-assisted writing. If unsure, disclose AI assistance transparently.

    2. Authorship & Intellectual Property (IP)

    • AI-generated text cannot hold copyright—only human authors can.
    • If AI was used as a tool (e.g., for rewriting, improving clarity, summarizing research you conducted), you are still the rightful author.
    • If AI produced significant portions of new content without human verification, some institutions may not recognize it as original research.

    3. Plagiarism & Accuracy Risks

    • AI does not verify factual accuracy—all content must be reviewed for correctness.
    • AI-generated text may unintentionally mimic existing writing—always check for inadvertent plagiarism.
    • If the AI-assisted abstract includes scientific claims, ensure they align with your actual research findings before submission.

    4. Best Practices for AI-Assisted Writing

    Heavy check mark Use AI as a writing assistant, not an author – The final abstract should reflect human expertise.
    Heavy check mark Verify all claims & findings – AI-generated content should be fact-checked.
    Heavy check mark Disclose AI use if required – Some journals/conferences request transparency.
    Heavy check mark Retain human authorship – AI tools assist, but the intellectual contributions must come from you."

Reply
  • in reply to Phased

    Hehe notwithstanding the irony of doing so I asked Ai to come up with and answer to the last point: 

    For which the answer is:

    "When using AI to generate or refine an abstract, consider the following legal and ethical aspects:

    1. Disclosure Requirements

    • Academic Journals & Conferences: Some journals (e.g., Nature, Elsevier) require disclosure if AI-assisted writing tools were used. Others may prohibit AI-generated content that is not independently verified. Check submission guidelines.
    • Grant Applications & Institutional Policies: Some funding bodies (e.g., NSF, EU Horizon) may have rules about AI-assisted writing. If unsure, disclose AI assistance transparently.

    2. Authorship & Intellectual Property (IP)

    • AI-generated text cannot hold copyright—only human authors can.
    • If AI was used as a tool (e.g., for rewriting, improving clarity, summarizing research you conducted), you are still the rightful author.
    • If AI produced significant portions of new content without human verification, some institutions may not recognize it as original research.

    3. Plagiarism & Accuracy Risks

    • AI does not verify factual accuracy—all content must be reviewed for correctness.
    • AI-generated text may unintentionally mimic existing writing—always check for inadvertent plagiarism.
    • If the AI-assisted abstract includes scientific claims, ensure they align with your actual research findings before submission.

    4. Best Practices for AI-Assisted Writing

    Heavy check mark Use AI as a writing assistant, not an author – The final abstract should reflect human expertise.
    Heavy check mark Verify all claims & findings – AI-generated content should be fact-checked.
    Heavy check mark Disclose AI use if required – Some journals/conferences request transparency.
    Heavy check mark Retain human authorship – AI tools assist, but the intellectual contributions must come from you."

Children
No Data