I'll speak to two elements here that speak to identifying a researcher or to a double-blind review when the researcher's identity isn't made immediately available to the reviewers.
Here, I refer first to CIHR, which was studied by Whitman some years ago. He looked at the two main streams at CIHR: one where there was primarily emphasis on the project and one where there was also considerable emphasis on the expertise and background of the researcher. It was when the researcher was being assessed that they saw greater discrepancy in terms of success rates of women. Somehow that was being factored in in a way that was disadvantageous to women.
I refer to the new frontiers in research fund, which does use that double-blind mechanism, and there we saw that success rates were very much in conformity with application rates and, in some instances, even a little higher.
Despite best attempts to focus on the scientific merit of the project, the research plan, the methodologies, etc., when we evaluate the researcher, it does seem that some unconscious bias can filter in and ultimately affect how an application gets evaluated.