Event evaluation: definitions, concepts and a state of the art review
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 define event evaluation, develop a conceptual model of its process and elements, review pertinent literature, and draw conclusions pertaining both to the discourse on evaluation and its praxis. Design/methodology/approach – General review of literature and development of a conceptual model of the evaluation process. Findings – The review suggests that impact assessments have dominated, but are only one type of evaluation; research and papers on evaluating the worth of events has been minimal, while those on the evaluation of various management and marketing functions is fragmented. Research limitations/implications – It is concluded that little has been written about evaluation paradigms and systems, although the discourse on sustainability and triple bottom line accountability has led to a greater emphasis on non-economic considerations. Originality/value – The conceptual model of the evaluation process and its components offers a systematic approach to shaping evaluation discourse and methods. Conclusions are drawn on how to advance evaluation research and methods applied to events.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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