Strategy evaluation: Experience at the International Development Research Centre
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
Abstract This chapter examines how the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) has framed and used strategic evaluations. Drawing from IDRC's experience, the authors look at Henry Mintzberg's ideas on strategy formation, and explore potential implications for evaluation in an organization that resembles what Mintzberg calls an “adhocracy.” The International Development Research Centre is a Canadian Crown Corporation that supports research in developing countries and undertakes evaluative work at different levels: strategic evaluations, program and project evaluation, and ongoing learning. “Strategic” evaluations examine issues that cut across the Centre's 18 programs. They have focused on programming modalities and broad corporate result areas like capacity building and policy influence. In a decentralized, utilization‐focused approach to evaluation, IDRC has taken the view that strategic‐level evaluation requires separate studies, as opposed to rolling up data from program or project evaluations. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Association.
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 | 0.037 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.001 |
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.
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