MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461643640 · doi:10.18296/em.0014

“Dancing with data”: Investing in capacity building for non-government organisations (NGOs)

2016· article· en· W2461643640 on OpenAlexaff
Annie Weir, Christa Fouché

Bibliographic record

VenueEvaluation Matters—He Take Tō Te Aromatawai · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)BusinessCapacity buildingPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing evaluation capacity with non-government organisations (NGOs) in New Zealand is in vogue, with funders increasingly keen to demonstrate that their investments in social-service programmes are outcomes-focused and providers keen to demonstrate the difference they are making. This article presents a case study of how a large philanthropic trust, focused on family social health and wellbeing, engaged with their grant recipients to improve both outcome-focused evaluation practices and their own evaluation of grants. Partnering with a community funding broker and a research company, the Trust enabled an evaluation capacity-building programme, Dancing with Data. This programme was conducted as three distinct workshops several months apart, with 34

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvaluation Matters—He Take Tō Te AromatawaiSame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207