| |
| Panel Name: |
ICT Prioritisation Panel (December 2008) |
| Date of Panel: |
01 December 2008 |
| Panel Contact: |
Dr Cora O'Reilly |
|
| 1. |
| Dr M Brosnan | University of Bath | DEVELOPING EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE TO ASSESS IF AUTISTIC CHILDREN CAN BENEFIT FROM ACCESS TO OPEN LEARNER MODELS AND EMOTIONAL FEEDBACK ON LEARNING. | 478,813 |
| 2. |
| Professor I Hutchings | University of Cambridge | GlassJet printer | 318,643 |
| 2. |
| Dr WH Loh | University of Southampton | GlassJet printer | 640,068 |
| 4. |
| Dr JP Barker | University of Sheffield | CHIME: Computational Hearing in Multisource Environments | 326,245 |
| 5. |
| Professor IA Stewart | Durham University | Quantified Constraints and Generalisations | 247,539 |
| 6. |
| Dr T Altenkirch | University of Nottingham | Theory And Applications of Induction Recursion | 106,670 |
| 6. |
| Professor N Ghani | University of Strathclyde | Theory And Applications of Induction Recursion | 310,904 |
| 6. |
| Dr A Setzer | Swansea University | Theory And Applications of Induction Recursion | 104,925 |
| 9. |
| Dr DA Edwards | The University of Manchester | VERification-Driven Asynchronous Design (VERDAD) | 373,569 |
| 9. |
| Dr V Khomenko | Newcastle University | VERification-Driven Asynchronous Design (VERDAD) | 412,143 |
| 11. |
| Dr RD Stevens | The University of Manchester | SWAT (Semantic Web Authoring Tool) | 374,430 |
| 11. |
| Dr R Power | Open University | SWAT (Semantic Web Authoring Tool) | 640,759 |
| 13. |
| Dr D Mandic | Imperial College London | Qualitative Performance Assessment of Adaptive Filtering and Machine Learning Algorithms | 152,853 |
| 14. |
| Professor D Pradhan | University of Bristol | Process Variation Aware Synthesis of Nano-CMOS Circuits | 281,402 |
| 15. |
| Dr T Altenkirch | University of Nottingham | Reusability and Dependent Types | 244,671 |
| 15. |
| Dr J Gibbons | University of Oxford | Reusability and Dependent Types | 124,273 |
| 15. |
| Professor N Ghani | University of Strathclyde | Reusability and Dependent Types | 148,280 |
| 18. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 19. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 20. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 21. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 21. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 23. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 24. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 25. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 25. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 25. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 25. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 25. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 30. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 31. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 32. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 33. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 34. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 35. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 36. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 37. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 38. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 38. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 40. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 41. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 41. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 41. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 44. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 45. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 46. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 47. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 48. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 49. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 49. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 51. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 51. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 53. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 53. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 55. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 56. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 57. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 58. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 59. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 60. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 60. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 62. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 63. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 63. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 65. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 66. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 67. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 68. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 69. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 70. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 71. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 72. |
| | | Not Funded | |
| 73. |
| | | Not Funded | |
|
The following proposals were
deferred to be considered at a subsequent meeting
| n/a |
| | | Deferred | |
| n/a |
| | | Deferred | |
| n/a |
| | | Deferred | |
| n/a |
| | | Deferred | |
|
| Notes: |
| 1. | To maintain the anonymity of applicants, full details are available only for
those proposals that have been funded. |
| 2. | The ranking number given reflects that assigned at the meeting. Proposals may
be ranked jointly. This can indicate either that they were collaborating (and
thus considered together) or that the ranking could not be separated at the
panel. |
|
|
|
|
|