boshoku Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 hocesh da kazesh da mi ostali ne prelazimo sa chisto projektnog na kombinovano? ma ne, no će, imam utisak, instituti tog profila (izuzev raznih ekonomskih), imati ponajviše teškoća spram novih (polutržišnih) pravila igre saglasje na ostatak posta Quote Link to comment
gospa buba Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 (edited) ma ne, no će, imam utisak, instituti tog profila (izuzev raznih ekonomskih), imati ponajviše teškoća spram novih (polutržišnih) pravila igre saglasje na ostatak posta a svi ce biti u grozdju na ovaj ili onaj nachin. ali (1) da, mozda ce imati vishak problema i (2) ne bih potcenjivala drustvenjake unapred. do sada su se sasvim dobro pokazali. dovoljno je samo da se objasne pravila igde i da se da prelazni period. a prelazni period je vec bio, da ne kazem da je u toku, moguce je da neki to i nisu shvatili, jer nije bilo dovoljno jasno insistitano da je to to. ali drushtvenjaci su se definitivno lepo pokazali, to bi se i videlo kad bi neko ikad objavio rezultate projekata. mislim, u smislu - transparentno, ne na shupi ispod stepenica, i ne na search engine pa uzmi broj projekta pa trazi... <_< naravno ima ekipa za koju bi bio osamstopesto puta pametnije da je za ovih10 godina neshto produkovala u skladu sa novim pravilima igre, uruzila se s nekim, nahla saradnike prema sklonostima i sposobnostima (pa ko koga uzjashe ) nego shto je kukala okolo na nepravdu sistema, na zalost, i osvanula sa nula bilo chega... tako da bice svuda nekakve histerije, nema govora. Edited September 15, 2016 by gospa buba Quote Link to comment
Prospero Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 (edited) Dopis ZISa novom ministru o finansiranju nauke, tj o odlaganju novih projekata do remonta modela finansiranja ZIS finansiranje nauke avgust 2016.pdf Edited September 15, 2016 by Prospero Quote Link to comment
gospa buba Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 (edited) njesra, realno <_< (da se razumemo, meni ovo stanje sad odgovara vishe nego buduce, finansijski pogotovo. ali ne valja brate, da citiram opshteg mesta) Edited September 15, 2016 by gospa buba Quote Link to comment
boshoku Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 pa dobro, ako uspeju da izboksuju stalno zaposlenje, ae, ne mora za sve al recimo za one koji su doktorirali, plus približavanje izjednačenju plata s visokoškolstvom, to bi bilo ok... e sad, da li je i jedno i drugo (i koliko) realno, zbilja ne znam, verovatno nije Quote Link to comment
gospa buba Posted September 15, 2016 Share Posted September 15, 2016 (edited) pa dobro, ako uspeju da izboksuju stalno zaposlenje, ae, ne mora za sve al recimo za one koji su doktorirali, plus približavanje izjednačenju plata s visokoškolstvom, to bi bilo ok... e sad, da li je i jedno i drugo (i koliko) realno, zbilja ne znam, verovatno nije pa kazem ti. ja imam stalno zaposlenje (zahvaljujuci nekom konceptu iz proshlog veka u koji sam upala skoro pa sluchajno). ali imam dve nove oblasti vec 2 godine koje nemam gde da knjizim jer nemaju veze sa tekucim projektom. ne samo ja nego gomile drugih ljudi. necu vishe ovo da radim, proshlo je, potrosheno je, saznali smo shta se moglo. sad treba da se cedi suva drenovina josh 5 godina zato shto oni ne umeju da reshe probleme koje su sami smislili, a ne mogu/nece da relaksiraju sistem u smislu novih istrazivanja. niko ne radi novo zato shto ga neko tera, nego shto se staro potroshlilo, oblast se unapredjuje/menja u okviru 5 godina, ne drlja se jedno te isto 15 godina. i najbolje josh da daje rezultate <_< Edited September 15, 2016 by gospa buba Quote Link to comment
Prospero Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 ... Using automatic text generation software, computer scientists at Italy’s University of Trieste created a series of fake peer reviews of genuine journal papers and asked academics of different levels of seniority to say whether they agreed with their recommendations to accept for publication or not. In a quarter of cases, academics said they agreed with the fake review’s conclusions, even though they were entirely made up of computer-generated gobbledegook – or, rather, sentences picked at random from a selection of peer reviews taken from subjects as diverse as brain science, ecology and ornithology. “Sentences like ‘it would be good if you can also talk about the importance of establishing some good shared benchmarks’ or ‘it would be useful to identify key assumptions in the modelling' are probably well suited to almost any review,” explained Eric Medvet, assistant professor at Trieste’s department of engineering and architecture, who conducted the experiment with colleagues at his university’s Machine Learning Lab. “If, by chance, a generated review combines sentences which are not too specific, but credible, the review itself may appear as written by a real, human reviewer even to the eyes of an experienced reader,” added Dr Medvet, whose paper, "Your Paper has been Accepted, Rejected, or Whatever: Automatic Generation of Scientific Paper Reviews", was published in the journal Lecture Notes in Computer Science last month. Mixing the fake reviews with real reviews was also likely to distort decisions made by academics by making weak papers appear far stronger thanks to a series of glowing reviews, the paper found. The research team was able to influence the peer review process in one in four cases by throwing fake reviews into the mix, it said. “This [may be] the situation [faced by a] real conference programme chair…who has to take decisions about all the submissions at his or her conference,” Dr Medvet told Times Higher Education. “He or she could decide [who to accept] without actually reading all the reviews, or maybe by giving them just a shallow read,” he added. While computer-generated reviews “cannot possibly deceive any rigorous editorial procedure, [they] could nevertheless find a role in several questionable scenarios and magnify the scale of scholarly frauds”, the paper concludes. ... https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/robot-written-reviews-fool-academics Quote Link to comment
gospa buba Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 blagosloven bio naci savet Quote Link to comment
Amelija Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 koliko jadan treba biti da bi se organizovalo kidnapovanje organizacije workshopa Quote Link to comment
gospa buba Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 (edited) a bogati. kolko treba tolko treba. ako matichni odbor ceni tu stavku, ce da kidnapujemo i drzimo u taocu! :d zashto si ti ovde. ni dobardan na vocapu? :o Edited October 15, 2016 by gospa buba Quote Link to comment
Amelija Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 eno ga, eno ga :D Quote Link to comment
gospa buba Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 otvoreno pismo zisu mrzi me da chitam. sjutra cu. Quote Link to comment
gospa buba Posted October 26, 2016 Share Posted October 26, 2016 pathological publishing bice invalidska :D Quote Link to comment
Dr Arslanagić Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 Lebe mekani, što volim kada recenzenti - mudraci krenu da se preseravaju na temu o kojoj užasno malo znaju... Pa mi tako koče zbornik i zajebavaju omladinu koja se baš trudi. Znači otići ću u Regensburg i zadaviti gada za katedrom. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.