Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urged on by the ambitions of a new public management, evaluation seems to have a rich future ahead of it, although this prosperity is not without equivocation. Despite this surge in esteem, evaluation still remains feared and even contested, and is often misunderstood. Reflecting upon the singular destiny of evaluation in France, the author observes that the processes’ reach is weakened by the combined effects of institutional factors and the methodological derivatives that play a role in distancing evaluation from action. The influence of evaluation is thus limited, especially since it has more and more competition from other procedures. Thus suggesting making evaluation mover active, the author proposes a change of perspective and commits to a pragmatic idea of evaluation. New procedures are thus proposed to increase the credibility and the reach of evaluations, make them a tool for collective intelligence and definitively promote “evaluative action”.
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 | 0.090 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.012 |
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".