MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060998986 · doi:10.1177/1098214006287990

Developing a Stakeholder-Driven Anticipated Timeline of Impact for Evaluation of Social Programs

2006· article· en· W2060998986 on OpenAlex
Sanjeev Sridharan, Bernadette Campbell, Heidi M. Zinzow

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

VenueAmerican Journal of Evaluation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineStakeholderStakeholder engagementStakeholder analysisProgram evaluationProcess (computing)Process managementComputer scienceManagement sciencePublic relationsBusinessPolitical scienceEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors present a stakeholder-driven method, the earliest anticipated timeline of impact, which is designed to assess stakeholder expectations for the earliest time frame in which social programs are likely to affect outcomes. The utility of the anticipated timeline of impact is illustrated using an example from an evaluation of a comprehensive community initiative in which such a timeline was developed using the concept-mapping methodology. The benefits of such a timeline, including for planning programs and evaluations, are explored. Some potential problems that might arise when developing a stakeholder-driven timeline of impact are also discussed.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.479
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.100 · 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