{"id":"W14092155","doi":"10.3138/cjpe.018.003","title":"Balancing Ethical Principles in Evaluation: A Case Study","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation","topic":"Evaluation and Performance Assessment","field":"Decision Sciences","cited_by":3,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Neglect; Engineering ethics; Politics; Indigenous; Ethical decision; Ethical issues; Ethical code; Political science; Public relations; Psychology; Sociology; Law; Engineering","routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":true,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":true},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaresearch","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["metaresearch"],"category_scores_codex":[0.097543,0.0001466179,0.0003072087,0.001127396,0.0002483656,0.0004497978,0.0003283895,0.0001514849,0.003572913],"category_scores_gemma":[0.01793012,0.0001164658,0.0001026562,0.001475659,0.00007071625,0.0004934727,0.00001035877,0.000623618,0.00005050762],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00102649,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.01387194,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001166128,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.172995,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9891697,0.004167271,0.001609962,0.0003083575,0.004396225,0.0003485209],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9934549,0.0004863056,0.0007016309,0.0003905687,0.004482266,0.0004842824],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00001239659,0.0001860484,0.5070198,0.000003376857,0.00002989943,0.0005777788,0.009866308,0.02104825,0.00000548264,0.0007365697,0.0004000125,0.4601142],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.008355482,0.002280637,0.4270647,0.0001229652,0.0003488178,0.005566809,0.09008723,0.4191833,0.00004813887,0.01097801,0.03544289,0.0005210285],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9908286,0.000265282,0.0002958871,0.001129734,0.0008278991,0.002347621,0.000001325303,0.000005645399,0.004297967],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9974532,0.00000159232,0.002003843,0.0002119869,0.00009186349,0.0001689459,0.000001935094,0.000009543282,0.0000571507],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.4595931,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9973379,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.5803079388152322,"score_gpt":0.5911604505217036,"score_spread":0.01085251170647139,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}