Jon Dean

@jondeanstuff.bsky.social

Associate Professor in Politics and Sociology, Sheffield Hallam University. Charity researcher. Views my own

I hate this so much. The BBC should be providing good quality, good value programmes that the private market won't cover. You and Yours (which I kind of hate), Thinking Allowed and Free Thinking are exactly the sort of programming that the BBC is i) good at, ii) not haemorrhaging money to make.

BBC to cut raft of Radio 4 programmes including You and Yours

The corporation said it would be investing in a new consumer programme, while announcing more cuts.

bbc.co.uk

Just a reminder: Tillis persuaded the woman Hegseth allegedly raped to come forward with her story, and told her that if she did, it would sink the nomination. She did. At great risk to herself. Tillis then cast the deciding vote for Hegseth. Because he’s a goddamned coward.

Outgoing Sen. Tillis regrets pivotal vote for Hegseth: ‘He’s an actor. He’s not a manager’

Outgoing Sen. Thom Tillis spoke to MS NOW about regretting his vote to confirm Pete Hegseth and his strained relationship with Trump.

ms.now

Was bored with work, wanted to do something rewarding, I volunteer a few hours once a month for a charity. It's amazing. A boring Fess, but it is rewarding. Just do something good for someone, it will make you and more importantly someone else feel better. Do it, please.

🤡 Schmitt beclowns himself 🤡 Schmitt concocted an elaborate conspiracy theory that Smith traveled to Atl for a Hawks game and to collude with Fani Willis, & flashed his "evidence" before accusing Smith of perjury. There's just one problem -- his facts were totally wrong. Here's the whole sequence:

This is @ukri.org effectively abandoning what it means to be part of academia. There, humans read things, critique things, and provide feedback, even if it is not the feedback we want. It is symptomatic of the developing horror that is the UK research funding landscape. It's horrendous.

John Stott@jpsastro.bsky.social · 2w ago

Had a UKRI funded grant proposal rejected at the "AI triage stage". "This AI-based triage was used only to identify approximately 50% of the strongest proposals to take forward to full human review." 🧪 #academicsky

I am writing to let you know that, unfortunately, your application was not successful.

Review process

As part of the initial triage of the 179 proposals submitted to this call, each was assessed using an AI-based review. Every proposal was read independently by several different AI models against the same seven criteria used to shape this call (including cyber security relevance, research quality and novelty, importance of the problem addressed, feasibility of the project plan, likely outputs and impact, value for money, and responsible research practice), with each model asked to give a score and a written justification with supporting quotations from the text. To guard against any one model's idiosyncrasies, we also ran a second, independent process in which different AI models debated the merits and weaknesses of each proposal before reaching a judgement, again against the same criteria. Scores from both processes were combined to produce an overall ranking. 

This AI-based triage was used only to identify approximately 50% of the strongest proposals to take forward to full human review.  Projects selected for funding were drawn from those that progressed to the full human review stage. We recognise that AI-assisted assessment is a new and evolving part of the review process, and we are continuing to evaluate how well it aligns with the judgements of human reviewers on this call. We will soon produce a document detailing our method, so that others can build upon it and improve it.

Feedback on your application

Your application was not selected to progress beyond the AI triage stage.  To provide transparency on the outcome of this assessment, we are sharing below the scores (out of 5) from each of the two AI review processes described above, together with the mean score across the two processes.

I think once black clad men are interfering with rescues at sea, we are past "legitimate concerns". Once they're attacking boats, and risking the lives of everyone on board, it's just thuggery. The Home Secretary's statement is on the side of criminals. There's no other way to read it.

Great to hear the PM say “We are going to be much prouder in standing up for our values and the rule of law” re foreign information warfare. I wonder if he or the Home Secretary might consider doing the same when it comes to masked vigilantes shutting down infrastructure and harassing the RNLI

me trying to explain to the home secretary that white men can't murder RNLI volunteers at sea even if their concerns are legitimate (seeing a brown person on the bus)

Bild