MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Critical Themes of Process Assessment in Rural ICT4D Projects: An Analysis of Assessment Approaches

2014· article· en· W2125649870 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of OxfordInternational Development Research CentreRhodes UniversityUnited Nations Development ProgrammeWorld Bank Group
KeywordsProcess (computing)Process managementKnowledge managementInformation and Communications TechnologyBusinessManagement scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are often perceived as adequate support tools for development activities. However, their successful employment as development enablers requires strategic implementation. Hence, effectively assessing ICT4D initiatives is imperative. This paper elaborates on a Rural ICT4D Project Process Assessment Framework (RICTP‐PAF) that seeks to address an often overlooked but relevant evaluation aspect of ICT4D projects. It proposes that the implementation phase of such projects demand rigorous assessments, as implementation is the link between project ambitions and impacts. It is argued that knowledge of critical themes of process assessment in rural ICT4D projects may present an appropriate way of conducting such assessments. Hence, the paper describes a systematic approach employed to identify generic critical themes of process assessment in rural ICT4D projects, and how they may be appropriately assessed. This approach culminates in the development of the RICTP‐PAF.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.271 · 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