The Changing Landscape of Development Evaluation Training: A Rapid Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Bank Independent Evaluation \n Group (IEG) works to improve development results through \n excellence in evaluation. A key part of this mandate focuses \n on developing the Bank’s client countries’ capacities in \n monitoring and evaluation. To this end, IEG developed the \n International Program for Development Evaluation Training \n (IPDET) in 2001, and this executive training program has \n been implemented since then in partnership with Carleton \n University in Ottawa, Canada. IPDET is managed by Carleton \n University but has received substantial in-kind (through \n technical experts) and financial support over the years from \n IEG. IPDET was conceived to offer a one-of-a-kind learning \n program for filling a gap in development evaluation \n training. However, there is broad recognition that the \n landscape is changing, with increasing numbers of \n organizations providing monitoring and evaluation (ME) \n training in some form, an evolving mix of formal graduate \n degree and certificate programs preparing evaluators, \n innovations in learning supported by new technologies, and \n the growing engagement of local networks and evaluation \n associations in evaluation capacity development. In this \n context, IEG has commissioned a rapid review of the current \n landscape for ME training to develop an understanding of the \n current context in which IPDET operates. Finally, training \n programs focused specifically on development evaluation were \n of particular interest for this review. The distinction \n between ‘evaluation’ and ‘development evaluation’ is \n arguably an important one, with increasing attention focused \n on what kinds of peer groups and curriculum are needed to \n effectively build the ME skills and knowledge relevant for a \n developing country context.
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 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 | 0.059 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".