Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an national voluntary educational program evaluation standard, America's Program Evaluation Standard had been revised three times from the year of 1981 to 2011. Program Evaluation Standard( 2011) was formulated by Joint Committee of on Standards for Educational Evaluation( JCSEE), a coalition of major professional associations in the United States and Canada concerned with the quality of evaluation, with a strict procedure. The standard plays a role of standardizing, guiding, adjusting and quality control in America 's educational program evaluation. The newest edition standard presents a serial of characteristics, i. e. parent standards integrating sub-standards, which are of close relation with each other, and highlighting meta-evaluation etc. Therefore, the formation of China's education evaluation standards should base on a sufficient research, proper imitation and factual investigation with extensive stakeholders involving in the formation procedure and the content of standards should deal with the relationship between instruction and feasibility well.
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 | 0.181 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".