Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore an evaluation approach and to develop a model of web site evaluation that includes the specification of evaluation criteria, key issues to discuss and recommendations for improving the web site – in this case, that of the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto (CSPC‐T). Design/methodology/approach The research consisted of three phases: phase 1 involved selection of the general evaluation criteria for web sites, based on a review of the literature plus the collection of factual data on information systems related to the CSPC‐T web site; phase 2 included a step‐by‐step evaluation of the existing CSPC‐T web site based on the general criteria presented in phase 1; and phase 3 provided recommendations in association with the key issues identified in phase 2 in order to improve the CSPC‐T web site, and developed the key components of the evaluation model. Findings The evaluation of the CSPC‐T web site found mostly positive results in terms of the content of the site and its ability to deliver information to the residents and local communities of Toronto. However, the design of the web site had some negative points requiring improvement, including site structure, page layout and interface design. Practical implications The paper demonstrates a step‐by‐step, practical evaluation of community web sites. The research provided a detailed report to CSPC‐T about its existing web site. This should be useful to CSPC‐T in considering how to improve its web site or whether to redesign it to deliver information and services more effectively. Originality/value This paper contributes to the knowledge base in the fields of community networks and web site evaluation, and to the improvement of the quality of information and service delivery to local communities via the web.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.078 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".