Evaluation of Aboriginal Programs: What Place is Given to Participation and Cultural Sensitivity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aboriginal populations in Northern Canada have, for many years, been confronted with socio-economic problems affecting their development. In the early 1990s, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) report concluded that it was important to integrate Aboriginal people into the management of public policies that concern them and to encourage their autonomy. In order to produce a quality evaluation that is useful in particular cultural contexts, measures have been developed to assure that the evaluation highly regards cultural sensitivity while integrating local participants in the evaluation process. This study, based on the systematic analysis of a non-probability sample of 27 program evaluation reports, presents an inventory of evaluation practice in Aboriginal contexts and estimates in what measure a culturally sensitive and participatory approach was applied. It was apparent that cultural sensitivity is gradually being integrated into Aboriginal program evaluation and that certain indicators show that there has been a positive evolution in this direction. Finally, the study shows an occasional recourse to participatory approaches, but this is not a strong tendency as systematically technocratic approaches are more broadly employed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".