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 contributes to research on evaluation by examining the capacity and contribution of developmental evaluation for innovating. This case study describes the preformative development of an educational program (from conceptualization to pilot implementation) and analyzes the processes of innovation within a developmental evaluation framework. Developmental evaluation enhanced innovation by (a) identifying and infusing data primarily within an informing process toward resolving the uncertainty associated with innovation and (b) facilitating program cocreation between the clients and the developmental evaluator. Analysis into the demands of innovation revealed the pervasiveness of uncertainty throughout development and how the rendering of evaluative data helped resolve uncertainty and propelled development forward. Developmental evaluation enabled a nonlinear, coevolutionary program development process that centered on six foci—definition, delineation, collaboration, prototyping, illumination, and reality testing. This article concludes by encouraging evaluators to understand the demands of innovation and the value of design thinking when innovating.
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 | 0.029 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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