Public beta© 2026 Adaptrex, LLC
Public beta© 2026 Adaptrex, LLC
Federal grant · project grant (b)
New Methods for Measuring Expert Influence -this Research Investigates How and When Scientists and Other Technical Experts Have Affected Decisions Related to Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) Decisions of National Importance, Such as Research Security, Science Education, and Public Health. Decision Makers Increasingly Rely on Scientists and Other Technical Experts to Inform U.s. National Sti Decisions. However, the Influence of Science and Scientists in Public Decision Making Remains Difficult to Evaluate Due to the Wide Range of Evidence Used and the Delay Between Ideas and Outcomes. the Research Will Focus on the Role of Advisors and Entrepreneurs in Advising and Coordinating Sti Research and Development (R&D). the Goal Is to Inform the Science Decision Making System and Increase the Appropriate Uptake of Scientific Data and Analysis Into Sti Decision Making. a More Effective U.s. Science Decision Making System Will Lead to Improved Outcomes for the American Public and Strengthen U.s Global Leadership in Sti R&D. This Research Draws on Complementary Methods in Science of Science, the Digital Humanities, and Computational Sociology to Build a Novel Methodology for Identifying and Measuring Expert Influence on Decision Making Related to Sti. Utilizing a Large Corpus of Digital Textual Records, the Research Team Uses a Relational Database (RDB), Which Connects Individual Actors and Institutions to Documents and Outcomes Through Linked Metadata, to Trace Systematically the Decision-making Process Across Time. the Analysis of the RDB Is Complemented by Semi-structured and Oral History Interviews. the Interviews and Oral Histories Are Analyzed Using Computational Grounded Theory to Identify Patterns in Interview Responses, Providing a Means to Validate Findings From the Text Analysis. This Award Reflects NSF'S Statutory Mission and Has Been Deemed Worthy of Support Through Evaluation Using the Foundation's Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts Review Criteria.- Subawards Are Not Planned for This Award.
Committed
$400,000
Paid out
$78.7K
20%
Committed, not yet paid
$321.3K
80%
Loading…
Everything here is this single award's whole record — signed, amended, paid — not a fiscal-year slice. The by-year charts elsewhere split an award across the years it was committed; this page keeps it whole.
Committed is what the government has legally promised on this award so far. Contracts can also carry a ceiling — the maximum if every option is exercised. Unspent ceiling is headroom, not money owed.
The cash actually disbursed against this award. The gap from committed is the disbursement pipeline: promised, not yet cashed.
Each transaction is a signing event — an action that created or changed the award, dated the day it was signed — not a payment. Negative amounts are real: money de-committed at closeout or renegotiation.
One bar, the award’s whole arithmetic: paid out, then committed, not yet paid, then unspent ceiling.