2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

[MSCA_FAN]

Bren, we got a hundred at my institution... so, no pressure there!

[Bren]

Bren, we got a hundred at my institution... so, no pressure there!

[evolved]

Let's see who will prefer my theory:
Process is like last year. Some have been in RANKING, finished:false since a very long time (~12 January). But the outofdate link showed "submission". So we didn't notice a thing.
Then, they updated quickly everyone to RANKING, finished:true (out of date still is finished:false) , and there are some proposals that appear still "evaluation" in the outofdate link but for which either ranking is ambiguous, so in the true link they are RANKING, finished:false, or they did not even enter RANKING.

The problem with your theory is that I was one of the first ranked and I am gonna get this fellowship (for the benefit of next years readers).

Regarding sample size:

Say you want to model 10,000 coin flips to find out how many will be beads and how many tails. If you flip a coin 30 times, about 15 would be heads and 15 tails. It’s incredibly unlikely that all 30 will be heads. Last year we saw that those ranked first practically all were rejected. Those ranked last practically all got it. And I say practically just to be safe as I didn’t check the other pages of the thread as the evidence was too strong by that point. If you disagree explain to me why we need a larger sample size, when the categories are so neat.

[Vency]

OMG all these conjectures are overheating my brain

[Bren]

I think you are wasting your time trying to make sense of all this.

The true test of your theory will be when the results are announced. Lets meet back here then and discuss this. At the very least, it could be helpful for us and others if we are applying next year.

Let's see who will prefer my theory:
Process is like last year. Some have been in RANKING, finished:false since a very long time (~12 January). But the outofdate link showed "submission". So we didn't notice a thing.
Then, they updated quickly everyone to RANKING, finished:true (out of date still is finished:false) , and there are some proposals that appear still "evaluation" in the outofdate link but for which either ranking is ambiguous, so in the true link they are RANKING, finished:false, or they did not even enter RANKING.

The problem with your theory is that I was one of the first ranked and I am gonna get this fellowship (for the benefit of next years readers).

Regarding sample size:

Say you want to model 10,000 coin flips to find out how many will be beads and how many tails. If you flip a coin 30 times, about 15 would be heads and 15 tails. It’s incredibly unlikely that all 30 will be heads. Last year we saw that those ranked first practically all were rejected. Those ranked last practically all got it. And I say practically just to be safe as I didn’t check the other pages of the thread as the evidence was too strong by that point. If you disagree explain to me why we need a larger sample size, when the categories are so neat.

[hmdoel]

Lets wait what will happen at 2pm today...

[keep_chr]

huh, my mind is blown with all our theories.
waiting several days is best strategy here...

[dreamline]

Lets wait what will happen at 2pm today...

this night? friday or monday? anything could be possible. I just wonder if they have ranked us all, then they will check the final results by eyes?

[megasphaera]

To me the whole situations looks like you are doing a kinetic measurement of something (without knowing how the curve will develop) and start to do analysis and draw conclusions before having all the results. Would you trusts the results? If the answer is yes maybe you should not do any science anymore.

Conclusion here is only one: just wait few days for the results.

[Raman]

Got email from my national contact point. They don't have the slightest idea when the results will be released other than the official date!. Waiting game continues!