An Assessment of the Theoretical Underpinnings of Practical Participatory Evaluation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is concerned with the underpinnings of practical participatory evaluation (PPE). Evaluation approaches have long been criticized because their results are often not used. It is believed that PPE addresses this drawback. The article focuses on the mechanisms underlying the links between activities and consequences in PPE. A PPE theory is proposed, based on learning theories and knowledge transfer theories, which comprises four key concepts and three hypotheses. The key concepts are interactive data production, knowledge coconstruction, local context of action, and instrumental use. The hypotheses articulate the relationships between these concepts. The article provides theoretical and empirical evidence to support the hypotheses discussed and present a framework for the proposed PPE theory. The importance of practitioner knowledge and participation in the PPE process in enhancing the use of results is partially supported by the literature. In general, it seems that the support is more theoretical than empirical.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it