Evaluability assessment of a small NGO in water-based development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in water-based development in low- and middle-income countries face unique challenges when it comes to evaluative practice. Few prioritize evaluation because they lack expertise and/or feel strongly about funding programs and not processes, given accountability to donors. To examine facilitators and barriers to evaluation in this context, we embarked on an organizational-level evaluation of H2O 4 ALL, a Canadian NGO with no prior evaluation experience. We first conducted an evaluability assessment, guided by Thurston and Potvin’s framework for social change programs, to understand evaluation priorities and needs. By triangulating findings from three qualitative sources of data – an environmental scan, a document review, and in-depth interviews – we demonstrated evaluability assessments’ applicability to water-based development and established a baseline for further research.
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 | 0.297 | 0.345 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".