MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1769680758 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.29.3.70

Launching the Credentialed Evaluator (CE) Designation

2015· article· en· W1769680758 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Keiko Kuji‐Shikatani, Marilyn W. Thompson, Maureen Matthew

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredentialingCredibilityProcess (computing)StakeholderCorporate governancePoliticsPolitical sciencePublic relationsBusinessEngineering ethicsPublic administrationProcess managementManagementEngineering managementLawComputer scienceEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: How do you make a professional designation program happen within one year? What resources, processes, systems, and structures are required? This article describes how the Canadian Evaluation Society (CES) implemented its national Credentialed Evaluator (CE) program through the dedication of volunteer members of the CES. The interdisciplinary nature of evaluation practice shaped the development of systems, policy, administrative procedures, governance, and management for the credentialing process. Consideration of political issues and communication with the stakeholder community were essential to the credibility of the implementation process.

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 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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.609
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.042 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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