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
Abstract: This article explores some of the opportunities open to evaluators as organizational development practitioners and the particular competencies and comparative advantages evaluators can bring to such initiatives. Examples include: (1) making systems connections between program culture and organizational culture (and therefore between program effectiveness and organizational effectiveness); (2) organizational mission fulfillment assessment (in contrast to and in relation to program goal attainment); (3) results-oriented, reality-testing leadership development as an organizational development effort to enhance the appropriate, effective, and ongoing use of outcomes evaluation at senior organizational levels; (4) reflective practice and action research built on evaluation logic and processes for organizational development; (5) knowledge management for learning organizations through identification and use of high quality (empirically supported and triangulated) lessons learned; (6) evaluation facilitation as a way of enhancing organizational communications; (7) process uses of evaluation for organizational learning and capacity building; and (8) developmental evaluation as a form of organizational development in teams.
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 | 0.019 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.030 | 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