Post #1863649
2026-03-02 23:22 UTC
@Canageek Mm, yes, those are fair points. I think I'd think of it as more "similar results to random" because I think that usually for my sort of work whose desk a grant lands on to review and what mood they're in when they do it is often more important than how good the writing is, so that adds a pseudorandom component separate to testing the grant writing skill-set.
Replies (1)
-
@Canageek@wandering.shop 2026-03-02 23:33
@JubalBarca That's fair, my Pi was on the NSERC review committee for a few years, so he described the Canadian process to us, and they think it's a little better than random, but only at achieving NSERC's goals of practical real world research, when I think that we do a lot better with more replication studies and theoretical research