MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096736443 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.17.002

The Temporal Logic Model Concept

2002· article· en· W2096736443 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Molly den Heyer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterimComputer scienceDocumentationLogic modelTemporal logicContext (archaeology)Adaptation (eye)AccountabilityProcess (computing)Temporal logic of actionsDuration (music)Space (punctuation)Artificial intelligenceProgramming languageInterval temporal logicSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article proposes an alternative program logic model based on the concepts of learning organizations and systems theory. The piece redefines time from a space or duration in which the preset program activities take place, to time as an evolutionary process in which the implementation of the program stimulates learning and adaptation. The latter concept of time was embedded into an alternative logic model, titled Temporal Logic Model. It provides a space for stakeholders to record changes in program context, interim assessments, and program modifications in a format that requires periodic updates. The documentation of how and why the program changes over time should enhance the program’s accountability as well as learning.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.597
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.108 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207