MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1929107339 · doi:10.1002/ev.20078

Cross‐Case Analysis and Implications for Research, Theory, and Practice

2014· article· en· W1929107339 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Directions for Evaluation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Theory of changeOrganizational changeAffect (linguistics)Thematic analysisContext (archaeology)Order (exchange)Evaluation methodsOrganization developmentKnowledge managementManagement sciencePublic relationsSociologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceManagementBusinessQualitative researchSocial scienceEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chapter 2 of this volume provided a close look at the evaluation capacity of eight distinct organizations. The organizations were selected on the basis of their interest in and commitment to evaluation as leverage for program and organizational change. Having examined each of the organizations in terms of context, evaluation drivers, evaluation capacity to do and use evaluation, and forces and factors that affect such capacity, this chapter looks across them in order to learn more about the complexities of evaluation capacity. Beginning with a cross‐case lens, we recapitulate what we found from the cases about organizational evaluation capacity and then present an emergent thematic analysis and discussion. The chapter ends with some implications for research, theory, and practice in the area.

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 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)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.469
GPT teacher head0.670
Teacher spread0.201 · 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