MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130276747 · doi:10.1177/1356389015593357

Towards a comprehensive framework for the evaluation of small and medium enterprise policy

2015· article· en· W2130276747 on OpenAlex
Arturo Vega, Mike Chiasson

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

VenueEvaluation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdditionalityRelevance (law)Public policyPolicy analysisProcess managementBusinessManagement scienceKnowledge managementComputer sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsPublic economicsPublic administrationEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research demonstrates the relevance of the evaluative cycle and its diverse methodological designs in small and medium enterprise (SME) policy. We structure our arguments based on the most common phases of the cycle, namely policy justification, needs, policy theory, implementation, impact and efficiency assessments. We use an in-depth case study of public assistance to an SME to illustrate how findings from these phases go beyond the results of the additionality practice in SME policy. We employ the findings as starting points to discuss several methodological designs for the evaluation of entire programmes, policies and systems.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.499
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.076 · 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