MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512095165 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.274

Evaluate This! A Case for Developing Evaluation Competencies

2016· article· en· W2512095165 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Linzi Williamson, Daniel W. Robertson, Kirstian Gibson, Micheal Heimlick, Sarah L. Sangster, Karen Lawson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition (biology)PsychologyBusinessMedical educationPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The Canadian Evaluation Society (CES) annual Student Case Competition provides an opportunity for university students from all regions of Canada to acquire invaluable experience. This practice note by members of the winning team in the 2015 competition explains how participating contributed to the development of specific evaluation competencies. Participation in the competition is recommended to other students as an excellent way to learn, grow, and develop evaluation expertise that should prove useful in any chosen career.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.018
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0080.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.572
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.009 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207