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.
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 | 0.162 | 0.223 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".