Better to randomly select from all the high detailed assessors selections as it feels random to have projects re-reviewed by GAs that don’t know the area.

One of the GAs has given it an E, no indication why. There is a member of the college that may have killed this LP last year too, then had a similar grant funded themselves with a competing company... I did check college members - feels deliberate.

The general assessors have very few people with even vaguely relevant expertise. In the FOR code, ARC have only funded less than *5* applications over the past *25* years - their data.

Schematic diagram doesn’t even tally with detailed assessor rankings. General assessors give no feedback so there is no clear idea of what they didn’t like.

Normalised weighting is actually ridiculously opaque

Rejoinder seems to have made no difference to opinion. General assessor ranked much lower than detailed assessors so overrode much higher rankings from the detailed assessors.

One of the assessors also said the team didn’t have publications in top journals in the area which was not true and clear in the ROPES and proposal.

The problem is that they ranked it low because an exempt SME didn’t contribute 25% cash contribution on account of being exempt (based on assessor’s comments)

The joy of yet another rejection with inadequate feedback and assessors with no clue of the subject area making ridiculous judgements.

3) The University of Queensland EECS HCC 🧑‍🎓
🔗 eecs.uq.edu.au/human-centre...

It’s been great collaborating with researchers from Human-Centred Computing! We’ve co-supervised students together and contributed project briefs in #TFOM and #astronomy themes @mashhuda.bsky.social #TFOM5YL

Some of these experts attribute far more reasoning capabilities to LLMs than I would. I’m beginning to feel that I walked past the AI cool aid fountain somewhere and forgot to take a drink.

I’m not an AI expert, but I have used ML approaches in my work. I am astonished by how everyone and their dog now claims to be an AI expert.

I have had English profs, Business academics etc., mansplain to me how LLMs work and academics outraged at people injecting these silly prompts rather than the reviewers that could fall for it.