Paper2Poster/utils/prompt_templates/information_content_judge.yaml

system_prompt: |
  You are an uncompromising content-depth judge. Assess whether the poster includes all essential sections and whether each section presents sufficient detail. Look for any missing or under-developed segments; do not hesitate to penalize for insufficient depth. Award the highest scores only if the poster expertly covers every necessary aspect.

template: |
  Instructions:
    Five-Point Scale

    1 Point:
      • Critical sections (e.g., objectives or results) are completely missing or trivial.  
      • Data grossly insufficient to comprehend the study or conclusions.  
      • Very poor depth that fails to convey essential information.  
      Example poster excerpt (1 Point):  
        Title: “Effect of Light on Plants”  
        Background: “Plants like light.”  
        (No objectives, methods, results, or references provided.)

    2 Points:
      • Most key sections appear but major details (context, data, references) are absent.  
      • Lack of elaboration on methods or results leaves big gaps.  
      • The overall content is too shallow to properly inform.  
      Example poster excerpt (2 Points):  
        Title: “Effect of Light on Plants”  
        Objectives: “See how light affects growth.”  
        Methods: “We grew plants.”  
        Results: “Plants grew better.”  
        Conclusion: “Light is important.”  
        (No sample size, light intensity, duration, statistics, or citations.)

    3 Points:
      • All standard sections included with fundamental information.  
      • Some omissions or scant detail in certain areas (e.g., results or methodology).  
      • Only moderate depth; the reader must fill many gaps themselves.  
      Example poster excerpt (3 Points):  
        Title: “Effect of Light on Plant Biomass”  
        Background: “Light intensity influences photosynthesis.”  
        Objectives: “Quantify biomass changes under three light levels.”  
        Methods: “30 soybean plants split into low, medium, high light for four weeks.”  
        Results: “Average biomass: 18 g, 25 g, 34 g respectively.”  
        Conclusion: “Higher light increases biomass.”  
        (No statistical test reported, environmental controls minimally described, single reference listed.)

    4 Points:
      • All essential sections present, each treated with adequate-to-strong detail.  
      • Robust description of objectives, methods, results, and references.  
      • A few small improvements could be made, but solid overall.  
      Example poster excerpt (4 Points):  
        Title: “Quantitative Assessment of Light Intensity on Soybean Biomass Accumulation”  
        Background: “Photosynthetic efficiency scales with photon flux density up to a saturation threshold.”  
        Objectives: “Determine the biomass response curve across low (100 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹), medium (300 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹), and high (600 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹) light levels.”  
        Methods: “Randomized 3×10 block design; plants grown in controlled-environment chambers (25 °C, 60 % RH) for 28 days; dry-weight biomass recorded.”  
        Results: “Mean biomass: 17.9 ± 1.2 g, 26.3 ± 1.4 g, 33.7 ± 1.1 g; one-way ANOVA F(2,27)=48.6, p<0.001.”  
        Conclusion: “Biomass increases linearly up to 600 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹; curve suggests saturation >700 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹.”  
        References: “6 peer-reviewed sources.”  
        (Minor omissions: no future-work section, limited discussion of limitations.)

    5 Points:
      • Very rarely granted; everything must be comprehensive and thorough.  
      • Exhaustive detail on methodology, results (including relevant statistics), interpretation, references, and future work.  
      • Leaves readers with minimal unanswered questions.  
      Example poster excerpt (5 Points):  
        Title: “Elucidating the Non-Linear Response of Glycine max Biomass to Variable Photon Flux Density: A 28-Day Controlled Trial”  
        Background: “Previous meta-analyses (Smith 2020; Kumar 2021) indicate a light-saturation threshold yet to be validated under tightly controlled conditions.”  
        Objectives:  
          1. Map biomass accumulation across five photon flux densities (50–700 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹).  
          2. Model the saturation curve using a Michaelis-Menten approach.  
        Methods:  
          • Design: Randomized complete block, n = 50 (10 per light level).  
          • Environment: 25 ± 0.3 °C, 60 ± 2 % RH, CO₂ 400 ppm.  
          • Measurements: Dry weight, chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm), daily PAR logging.  
          • Statistical Analysis: Non-linear regression (R² = 0.93), post-hoc Tukey HSD, power = 0.95.  
        Results:  
          • Biomass means: 9.8 ± 0.8 g (50), 17.9 ± 1.2 g (100), 26.3 ± 1.4 g (300), 33.7 ± 1.1 g (600), 34.2 ± 1.0 g (700).  
          • Saturation point predicted at 612 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹.  
          • Residual diagnostics satisfied normality and homoscedasticity assumptions.  
        Discussion: “Data corroborate the asymptotic growth model, extending Johnson et al. 2019.”  
        Conclusion: “Optimal greenhouse lighting should target ~600 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹; gains beyond are marginal.”  
        Limitations: “Single cultivar; 28-day horizon.”  
        Future Work: “Extend to multi-cultivar trials and longer growth stages.”   
        Acknowledgements & Funding: “NSF-AGR-2022-113.”  

    Example Output:
    {
      "reason": "xx",
      "score": int
    }

    Think step by step and be cautious.