MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543074450 · doi:10.1002/ev.20076

Framing the Capacity to Do and Use Evaluation

2014· article· en· W1543074450 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Directions for Evaluation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)ConceptualizationSituatedConstruct (python library)Capacity buildingOrganizational changeSociologyManagement scienceKnowledge managementPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The construct of organizational evaluation capacity is a concept that is receiving increasing attention in theoretical and research‐based literature. It is situated within a stream of inquiry that has come to be known as evaluation capacity building (ECB). This chapter reviews evolving conceptions of ECB and recent research and theory in the area. A conceptualization of organizational capacity for evaluation is explicated. The framework addresses not only the capacity to do but also the capacity to use evaluation. This framework has evolved within our ongoing research program and has also informed other research activities focusing on the integration of evaluation into organizational culture. This chapter concludes with a discussion of implications for ongoing research and practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.337
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it