Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
Assay and Acquisition of Radiopure Materials

User Tools

Trace:
aaac:jul9

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
aaac:jul9 [2015/07/09 12:04] – priscaaaac:jul9 [2015/07/09 14:47] (current) – prisca
Line 13: Line 13:
 === Drill down and fill in the gaps on Agency Statistics === === Drill down and fill in the gaps on Agency Statistics ===
   * Michael Cooke added to the [[aaac:doe_cosmic_frontier:resources|DOE Cosmic Frontier Resource Page]]    * Michael Cooke added to the [[aaac:doe_cosmic_frontier:resources|DOE Cosmic Frontier Resource Page]] 
-  * Prisca and Michael will continue to work together on pulling together the relevant data.  I remind you that DOE provides a counter example to success rates. Specific issues:+  * Prisca and Michael will continue to work together on pulling together the relevant data.  I remind you that DOE provides a counter example to success rates - see spreadsheet at that link.  Other Issues are 
     * demographic data (gender, race, age) is not requested (no database).  It might be inferred from the comparative review notes.  Early Career rewards require < 10 yrs from PhD     * demographic data (gender, race, age) is not requested (no database).  It might be inferred from the comparative review notes.  Early Career rewards require < 10 yrs from PhD
     * data exists on whether it is a “new” proposals to the HEP program vs “renewal”  to the HEP program. A PI moving between research thrusts (aka “frontiers”) would be considered a “renewal” in this context.  Is there data on someone who puts in a resubmission of the same proposal the next year when it was rejected the first time?     * data exists on whether it is a “new” proposals to the HEP program vs “renewal”  to the HEP program. A PI moving between research thrusts (aka “frontiers”) would be considered a “renewal” in this context.  Is there data on someone who puts in a resubmission of the same proposal the next year when it was rejected the first time?
     * successful awards have public information on the institution, the PI, and the total amount of the award given by HEP.      * successful awards have public information on the institution, the PI, and the total amount of the award given by HEP. 
-    * the do NOT have number of PIs on a grant, total funding requested in the original proposal, breakdown of funding by frontier.  DOE is considering how to capture that.  +    * they do NOT have number of PIs on a grant, total funding requested in the original proposal, breakdown of funding by frontier.  DOE is considering how to capture that.  
     * Limited in how far back you can go: HEP began relying on the comparative review process for proposals submitted to the FY 2012 funding cycle. Some data exist from before 2012 but not as detailed and there are concerns about accuracy.     * Limited in how far back you can go: HEP began relying on the comparative review process for proposals submitted to the FY 2012 funding cycle. Some data exist from before 2012 but not as detailed and there are concerns about accuracy.
     * Agency impact: The comparative review is an improvement over the previous mail-in-reviews only process. The outcomes that we viewed were fair.  (comes from the COV)     * Agency impact: The comparative review is an improvement over the previous mail-in-reviews only process. The outcomes that we viewed were fair.  (comes from the COV)
aaac/jul9.1436461446.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/07/09 12:04 by prisca

Page Tools