MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113515522 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.016.001

Addressing Attribution through Contribution Analysis: Using Performance Measures Sensibly

2001· article· en· W2113515522 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John Mayne

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttributionAccountabilityAuthorship attributionPublic relationsAdministration (probate law)PsychologyBusinessPolitical scienceSocial psychologyComputer scienceLawArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The changing culture of public administration involves accountability for results and outcomes. This article suggests that performance measurement can address such attribution questions. Contribution analysis has a major role to play in helping managers, researchers, and policymakers to arrive at conclusions about the contribution their program has made to particular outcomes. The article describes the steps necessary to produce a credible contribution story.

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)0.250
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.507
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2500.507
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0060.016
Scholarly communication0.0220.028
Open science0.0040.014
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.680
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.109 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations342
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207