MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2484173420 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.0026.006

Logic Analysis: Testing Program Theory to Better Evaluate Complex Interventions

2012· article· en· W2484173420 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsPsychological interventionComputer scienceLogic modelRisk analysis (engineering)Action (physics)Management sciencePsychologyMedicineSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluating complex interventions requires an understanding of the program's logic of action. Logic analysis, a specific type of program theory evaluation based on scientific knowledge, can help identify either the critical conditions for achieving desired outcomes or alternative interventions for that purpose. In this article, we outline the principles of logic analysis and its roots. We then illustrate its use with an actual evaluation case. Finally, we discuss the advantages of conducting logic analysis prior to other types of evaluations. This article will provide evaluators with both theoretical and practical information to help them in conceptualizing their evaluations.

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 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.593
GPT teacher head0.609
Teacher spread0.016 · 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