A. Develop an epistemology of qualitative judgments (“grades”) which apply to scientific items (such as hypotheses, questions, research projects) in various contexts (such as evaluation of pursuitworthiness, evaluation of acceptance for the purposes of policy guidance, or as ratified scientific knowledge) and develop corresponding rationality norms for epistemic grading.
B. Develop a framework of qualitative grade aggregation for epistemic purposes, present a logical map of grade aggregation procedures by establishing impossibility and possibility results, and normatively study the dynamics of epistemic grade aggregation in light of new evidence.
C. Apply the framework to different scientific contexts, focusing on judgment aggregation and deliberation in challenging situations such as expert disagreement or when facing time constraints and institutional pressures, in order to make new (and better) recommendations for aggregating judgments.
D. Disseminate research findings and solicit feedback from relevant stakeholders, such as expert agencies.

Traditional philosophical approaches to modeling beliefs in science, which typically rely on binary beliefs or probabilistic frameworks, fail to adequately capture the role of qualitative grading in scientific contexts. These approaches overlook important aspects of how qualitative judgments function in expert evaluations and decision-making. We hypothesize that enriching the literature with a formal treatment of qualitative grading will offer a more accurate and applicable framework for scientific evaluation. Methodologically, we propose that qualitative grading can be precisely formalized using rigorous tools, which can inform and enhance its role in scientific practice.

1. We will offer a foundational contribution to the epistemology of qualitative judgments in science, establishing this topic as a distinct field of study by clarifying the role of qualitative grades, articulating their rationality norms, mapping their relationships to existing epistemic categories (such as binary belief and credence), and introducing the first comprehensive framework for their aggregation.
2. The project will lead to theoretical advances in social epistemology and philosophy of science by introducing a novel framework applicable to real-world cases, such as interdisciplinary research evaluations, scientific advisory processes, or the description of what a scientific community believes.
3. Our results will have an impact on scientific practice by improving decision-making processes in expert committees, funding agencies, and advisory boards, as well as in smaller collaborative teams.