Addressing the Challenges Encountered During a Developmental Evaluation: Implications for Evaluation Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article describes three challenges encountered during a developmental evaluation and explains how these were addressed from the evaluators’ perspective. The evaluation was conducted to support the implementation of a three-year educational technology leadership project funded by the Alberta provincial government. The developmental evaluation responded to two purposes identified by the evaluation client: inform ongoing programmatic decisions and measure change in practice. The implications for evaluation practice related to the challenges of introducing a new evaluation approach, defining the boundaries of evaluator roles, and integrating technological resources are discussed and related to the Canadian Evaluator Competencies (Canadian Evaluation Society, 2010) and the Program Evaluation Standards (Yarborough, Shulha, Hopson, & Carruthers, 2011).
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 | 0.584 | 0.649 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".