Using Evaluation Capacity Building (ECB) to Interpret Evaluation Strategy and Practice in the United States National Tobacco Control Program (NTCP): A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supports state programs for the prevention and control of tobacco use through the National Tobacco Control Program (NTCP). OSH provides the NTCP with expert guidance and technical assistance on tobacco use control and disease surveillance as well as evaluation of tobacco control programs. These services fit national health goals and provide data to inform national and state policy making and program planning. However, the NTCP’s delivery of services, achievement of goals, and evaluation of efforts is hindered by fluctuations in dedicated state funds to support tobacco use prevention and control programs. To maximize effort and resources, evaluation capacity building (ECB) is a strategy for strengthening evaluation services, program efficiency, and program effectiveness, that is, program improvement. This article interprets NTCP using an ECB frame to learn the utility of this approach for making suggestions for structural and practice changes that lead to program improvement.
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 | 0.146 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".