Quick links:

Sector contests
Regional contests
Judging Criteria & Comments

 

Selecting Finalists & Judges' Choice Winner(s) - Sector contests

Includes:

1. Assigning proposals to all Judges
2. Judges' review of proposals
3. Conference call
4. Advancing Finalists & Winner(s), and providing feedback

 

1. Assigning proposals to all Judges

Fellows enter the Screening tab and assign all proposals to all Judges.  Each Judge is asked to review, rate, and provide feedback to all Semi-Finalist proposals.

 

2. Judges' review of proposals -

Judges log into their account and review each proposal. As before, the proposals assigned to them will turn from red to green once the rating is complete.

A few days before the call, check that all Judges have completed reviewing the proposals.  This stage will be complete when all (?)'s in the second column will be (X)'s or (checks).

 

3. Conference call to select Finalists & Winners

As before, download the "Judges Rating as CSV" file in the Judging Decision tab to view the average ratings and comments for all reviewed proposals.  Send this file to all Judges before the call.

Goals of call:

1. Select 1 or 2 Judges' Choice Winner(s)*

2. Eliminate any proposals that are not to be considered as a Finalist**

3. Create consensus on feedback to be given to proposals 

*The Judges are not obligated to choose a Judges' Choice Winner, if they do not deem any of the proposals worthy of the award.

**Some Semi-Finalists may not have addressed the Judges concerns adequately enough for them to be considered Finalists.  They are eliminated at this stage.  Finalists are proposals that are eligible for the Popular Choice award, which is determined by public voting.  The judging team may choose as many Finalists as they deem worthy of winning the Popular Choice Award. 

 

4. Advancing Finalists, and providing feedback

Fellows return to the Judging Results tab and submit whether or not it advances to the Finalist round.  Please submit comments on all Semi-Finalist proposals -- those that are advancing as Finalists and those that have been eliminated.  Please reword the Judges comments, if necessary, so that they are supportive and appreciative. 

The Judges' Choice Winner(s) should advance as a Finalist, but please do not indicate in the comments that they were a winner -- these results will be kept secret and will not be publicly announced until after the public voting period completes.  Email Michaël separately with the Judges' Choice Winner(s).

This round of judging is complete when there are no (?)'s on the contest page.  All emails and comments will be sent and posted simultaneously once the Climate CoLab staff confirms that the judging is complete.

Selecting Finalists & Judges' Choice Winner(s) - Regional contests

Calendar - Sept 1-14

Aug 26          Email Judges instructions

Sept 1-3         Fellow’s feedback

Sept 3            Email Judges proposals

Sept 4-10       Judges’ evaluations*

Sept 9-11       Email Judges call information (prior to the call)

Sept 11-14     Advance Finalists & provide feedback  

 

*You will need to receive the Judges’ feedback by Sept 10.

 

These steps are detailed in this 13 minute video, as well as in the text guide below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Email Judges instructions - Aug 26

 

Email template:

Please edit the parts highlighted in yellow.

 

Subject line: Preparing for the Finalist selection   Dear Judges,   The evaluation period runs from September 4 to September 10 (midnight EDT).   This process will be slightly different than the 1st Review and will be conducted directly on the Climate CoLab's platform.   To evaluate the proposals, please:   Log in at https://www.climatecolab.org/  (usernames below) and visit the contest page ([YOUR CONTEST URL]). View your assigned proposals.  You will see proposals highlighted in red -- these are the ones assigned to you.  They will turn green once you have completed your evaluation. View the Fellows’ comments.  When you open a proposal in red, you will see a tab called “Fellow Reviewâ€?.  Please review these along with the proposal content. Complete your evaluation. Scroll to the bottom of the proposal’s Description tab and provide ratings and your written feedback. Please include whether or not this proposal should advance as Finalist, or receive the Judges’ Choice Award, and hit SAVE.   If possible, please try to log in before September 4 and let us know if you are experiencing any difficulties. This way we can resolve any technical issues before the evaluation period.   Log in information: [JUDGE NAME]: [USERNAME] [JUDGE NAME]: [USERNAME] [JUDGE NAME]: [USERNAME]   Please note that the default password given to you by the Climate CoLab is climatechange (case sensitive, feel free to change).   Conference call: [CONFIRM THE TIME OF THE CALL OR ASK FOR THEIR AVAILABILITIES]. Please have your reviews ready by then.   Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. We will let you know when the proposals are ready for your review!   Best, [SIGNATURE]

 

 

2. Fellows’ feedback - Sept 1-3

 

By Sept 1, the Climate Colab team will:

• Screen the proposals for each contest

• Prepare the messages to be sent to the authors of incomplete or off-topic proposals

• Send Fellows the proposals that fulfill on the intention of the contest.  

(We hope this will expedite the process and have the Fellows’ support the tasks for which their expertise is the most valuable.)

 

Sept 1-3, by the Fellows:

• To enter your feedback in the system, please click the Fellow Review tab and enter your feedback in one or more  comment boxes.Comments in this tab will only be visible by the Fellows and the Judges, and can be edited at anytime.

 

As with the first review, for each sub-proposal, please:

(1) Summarize each sub-proposal:

• 1-2 sentences: A short summary of the actions proposed

• 1-2 sentences: Was the sub-proposal selected as a Semi-Finalist, Finalist, or Winner in another contest? What were the Judges' impressions at the time?  (You can see Judges’ comments in the sub-proposal’s Comment or the Evaluation tab)

• 1-2 sentences: Your impression of this sub-proposal and how well it fits in the larger plan.  If the sub-proposal has not been reviewed previously by any Judges, please review based on the 4 judging criteria.

 

Please clearly indicate to which parts of the proposal your comments relate. Please make it easy for the Judges to locate in your feedback the needed information on the sub-proposals.

 

(2) Write an overall statement for the entire plan proposal

• 1-paragraph (3-6 sentences):  Reflect on how well the authors selected a combination of strong sub-proposals, and your impression of the full proposal.  Note any overlapping or repetitive sub-proposals or concepts, and any gaps that have not been addressed.

 

 

 

 

3. Email Judges proposals - Sept 3

 

Email template:

Please edit the parts highlighted in yellow.

Subject line: Climate CoLab Proposals For Review   Dear Judges,   The time has come for you to evaluate the proposals, rate them, and select the Finalist(s). Finalists are eligible to receive the Judges' Choice Award and the Popular Choice Award (determined by public voting). Please carefully read the information below on how to access your proposals and submit your evaluations, the evaluation criteria,and the Judges' conference call. Instructions The deadline for evaluation is September 10 (midnight EDT). Please note that this deadline is not flexible. We thank you in advance for completing your reviews no later than Sept 10. To evaluate the proposals, please:   Log in at https://www.climatecolab.org/    and visit the contest page ([YOUR CONTEST URL]). View your assigned proposals.  You will see proposals highlighted in red -- these are the ones assigned to you.  They will turn green once you have completed your evaluation. View the Fellows’ comments.  When you open a proposal in red, you will see a tab called “Fellow Reviewâ€?.  Please review these along with the proposal content. Complete your evaluation. Scroll to the bottom of the proposal’s Description tab and provide ratings and your written feedback*. Please include whether or not you think this proposal should advance as Finalist, or receive the Judges’ Choice Award.  Please hit the SAVE button at the end of each evaluation.   *This written section is very important, because it provides the foundation for the feedback that we provide to each proposal authors, whether they advance as Finalists or not.     Evaluation criteria Finalist proposals: are well presented and at least potentially feasible; are especially strong in one or more of the 3 dimensions: feasibility, impact*, and novelty; include a sensible combination of sub-proposals that each match the criteria above; have combined the sub-proposals and included additional explanations to articulate a comprehensive vision for what this region can do about climate change. If the proposal offers a particularly strong strategy but does not include sub-proposals or if it is a very strong singular idea but does not create a comprehensive plan for the region, we may ask them to enter another contest or award them with an honorable mention.  (Including a comprehensive selection of good sub-proposals should be an important positive factor in judging; including many irrelevant, duplicative, or incompatible sub-proposals should be a negative factor.) *Climate CoLab Impact Assessment Fellows (working with the proposal authors, in some cases) have screened many of the proposals and estimated their impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These assessments can be found on the Impact tab, and explanations will be posted by the IA Fellows on the Fellow Review tab.  Judges are asked to consider these impact assessments as part of their evaluations of the potential impact of the proposals. The Fellows will aim to complete all assessments before you receive them.   If you have questions about how to find or interpret an Impact summary, about what to do if there is no assessment, or about any of these critera please ask us and cc Michael michaelh@climatecolab.org.   Conference call:   The conference call is scheduled for [DATE] at [TIME]. You will receive the meeting contact information and the agenda in a separate email.   Please let us know if you have any questions. We are looking forward to the conversation.   Best, [SIGNATURE] [MEETING CONTACT INFO]

 

 

 

4. Judges’ evaluations - Sept 4-10

 

Fellows follow up with the Judges to make sure that they receive their feedback by Sept 10.

 

All Judges review all proposals.

 

To check the status of the Judges’ evaluation, visit the contest homepage. This stage will be complete when all (?)'s in the second column will be (checks). If there is a (?) in the second column, open the Screening tab to see which Judge has not yet reviewed the proposal. Next to the Judges' pictures, there will be either a red (X) or a green (checks).

 

 

 

 

5. Email Judges call information (prior to the call) - Sept 9-11

 

Download the "Judges Rating as CSV" file under the Judging Decision tab.  
Prior to the call, send the CSV file, the meeting contact information and the agenda (see example below) to the Judges.

 

Goals of call:

1. Select 1 or 2 Judges' Choice Winner(s)*

2. Eliminate any proposals that are not to be considered as a Finalist**

3. Create consensus on feedback to be given to proposals

 

*The Judges are not obligated to choose a Judges' Choice Winner, if they do not deem any of the proposals worthy of the award. However, selecting a winner is highly desirable.

**If proposals reviewed during the 1st Review did not address the Judges’ concerns adequately enough for them to be considered Finalists, they can be eliminated at this stage.  

Finalists are proposals that are eligible for the Popular Choice award, which is determined by public voting from September 17 (noon) to September 26 (midnight Eastern Time). The judging team may choose as many Finalists as they deem worthy of winning the Popular Choice Award.

 

 

Agenda - Example

Time: August 12, 10:00 am (Eastern Time) Meeting led by: David Purpose: To select the Finalist(s) and the Judges' Choice Winner(s)   10:00 - 10:10 : Brief welcome and introduction of the Judges on the call 10:10 - 10:50 : Discussion of the proposals strengths and weaknesses, and decision on the Finalist(s) and the Judges’ Choice Winner(s) Review the lowest-rated proposals and determine which can definitely be eliminated. Review the highest-rated proposals and determine which will certainly advance. Review the others and determine whether or not they will advance. 10:50 - 11:00 : Summarize results

 

 

 

 

6. Advance Finalists & Provide Feedback - Sept 11-14

 

One or more Fellows go through each proposal and submit whether or not the Judges decided to advance it to the final round, by completing the following:

 

• Submit Judges’ decisions: Click on the proposals’ Judges Decision tab. Select if the proposal will advance or not.

• Provide feedback: Click on "Go To Email Template". Please copy/paste the relevant email template in the comment box under the Judging Decision tab. In addition, please form well-constructed feedback to each proposal author, whether or not this proposal advances as Finalist and add this at the end of the email template (Judges and Fellows' feedback should be presented separately). Hit the SAVE button.

 

The Judges' Choice Winner(s) should advance as a Finalist, but do not indicate in the comments that they were a winner -- these results will be kept secret and will not be publicly announced until after the public voting period completes.  Please email Michaël separately with the Judges' Choice Winner(s).

 

This round of judging is complete when there are no (?)'s on the contest homepage.

 

All saved messages will be sent by email and posted (under the Evaluation tab of the proposals) simultaneously once the Climate CoLab staff confirms that the judging is complete.

 

Feel free to contact Michaël at anytime if you need additional support or if there is anything that slows the process.

 

 

 

Judging Criteria & Comments

Proposals are rated on a 4-point scale on these 4 criteria:

1. Novelty - The degree to which the proposal is original (not only rare but also ingenious, imaginative, or surprising), and modifies a paradigm.

2. Feasibility - The degree to which the proposal is appealing (socially, legally and politically) and implementable (technically and economically). - The degree to which the proposal is appealing and implementable in the current social, political, technical and economic environment. 

3. Impact -  The degree to which the proposal, if successfully implemented, will be effective at solving the challenge in the contest prompt.

4. Presentation - The degree to which the proposal is presented in a clear, persuasive and appealing manner.

Comments

All proposals are provided comments.  While there is no required length, we ask that comments are written professionally and in complete sentences.  The intention is to give feedback on the proposal's strengths and/or constructive criticism on how the authors could improve their work.

Please avoid harsh judgments and sharp comments – all proposal authors are passionate volunteers and we want to show respect for their time and effort.

All comments entered in the text field below "JUDGES COMMENTS:" (below the email autotext) will be emailed to the authors as well as posted on the proposal's comment page.