From 4e46fa87d610ebac8714bb0f8926cae13c99333d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:11:01 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] Fix remaining mentions of "proposal" in the paper.

Pointed out by Dr. Hicks.
---
 paper/paper.tex | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/paper/paper.tex b/paper/paper.tex
index 7ce6770..a61daa3 100644
--- a/paper/paper.tex
+++ b/paper/paper.tex
@@ -160,10 +160,10 @@ to a solution that loads one reviewer by $L$ and the other by $L+2$
 unless the load imbalance in the second solution is outweighed by
 other benefits.
 
-For each reviewer $i$ and proposal $j$, there is a unit-capacity edge from $i$
+For each reviewer $i$ and paper $j$, there is a unit-capacity edge from $i$
 to $j$ allowing that pair to be assigned, unless the reviewer declared a
 conflict of interest, in which case the edge is not present.  The edge cost is
-based on the desirability value $d_{ij}$ stated by reviewer $i$ for proposal
+based on the desirability value $d_{ij}$ stated by reviewer $i$ for paper
 $j$.  For values on the NSF scale of 1 (best) to 40 (worst), we chose the cost
 function $(10 + d_{ij})^2$, in an attempt to provide an incentive to avoid
 really bad matched pairs without completely masking the difference between a
-- 
2.34.1

