MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1700780107 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.0028.006

Evaluator Competencies: The Canadian Experience

2014· article· en· W1700780107 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Heather Buchanan, Keiko Kuji‐Shikatani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Engineering ethicsContext (archaeology)Political sciencePsychologySociologyPublic relationsManagementEngineeringHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article examines the development and adoption of competencies in Canada, created as a key foundation of the Credentialed Evaluator designation under the auspices of the Canadian Evaluation Society (CES). Following a brief description of the Canadian evaluation context and issues that led to the competencies’ development, this article reviews the development process. The approved Competencies for Canadian Evaluation Practice are presented with concluding comments on the future of competencies in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0210.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.362
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207