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.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it