The poster session and the three elected posters !

Finally here are the best three posters that were elected during the symposium! This is also an opportunity to discuss about this specific poster session, what you liked and what you didn't like.

Indeed you remember that we asked you to make specific posters for this interdisciplinary PhD symposium, with as little text as possible, basically one figure and one question you wanted to discuss. From the survey, where 43 participants responded, 51% of you preferred this poster session, 30% had no preference while 16% preferred the “classical” one.

On one hand, a drawback that was mentioned concerning these new posters was that one can hardly get anything from it if the author is not around. On the other hand, it seems that these posters allowed more personal interactions, and left more room for new questions and unexpected encounters.

This kind of posters seemed to be adapted for such a transversal symposium, but we can wonder whether it would be suitable for specific meetings. What is a poster for? To which extent should a poster be autonomous? Should it show results and/or raise questions?

Meetings are events where interactions often last a few minutes. In such conditions, how to build thoughts during a symposium, how to go beyond the superficial networking aspect? How to make it a place for collective thinking and working?

Our poster session was an attempt to leave more space for such interactions.
We'd be happy to get your suggestions and feedback!

---

Here are the three posters that were elected during the symposium:

Statistics of various natural tilings : so different, yet so similar? by Anan Hocevar

Why aren't we all bayesian? by Corey Chivers

The future of bioinformatics : automatic inference or biological knowledge? by Christophe Bécavin

• ‹ previous
• 3 of 26
• next ›