Comparing Approaches: Telecentre Evaluation Experiences in Asia and Latin America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract IDRC has telecentre evaluation initiatives in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Each of these is in the process of establishing evaluation frameworks and each is adopting very different approaches. The current paper seeks to build on the outputs of IDRC's Far Hills Workshop on Telecentre Evaluation (September 1999) to explore the experiences in the two regions. These explorations will in turn contribute to IDRC's current initiative to develop a framework for ICTs evaluation. The Far Hills Workshop, and the resulting report entitledTelecentre Evaluation: A Global Perspective, had as objectives to explore challenges and opportunities for telecentre evaluation; understand and compare emerging evaluation frameworks and methodologies; assess needs and resources available; identify salient issues affecting telecentre performance; and provide an opportunity to exchange experiences and lessons across regions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".