MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2728340321 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.31121

Contribution Analysis: Theoretical and Practical Challenges and Prospects for Evaluators

2017· article· en· W2728340321 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRigourManagement scienceCausality (physics)AttributionEngineering ethicsPsychological interventionEpistemologyPsychologyComputer scienceSociologyRisk analysis (engineering)MedicineEconomicsSocial psychologyEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Contribution analysis (CA) is a theory-based approach that has become widely used in recent years to conduct defensible evaluations of interventions for which determining attribution using existing methodologies can be problematic. This critical review of the literature explores contribution analysis in detail, discussing its methods, the evolution in its epistemological underpinnings to establishing causality, and some methodological challenges that are presented when CA is applied in practice. The study highlights potential adaptations to CA that can improve rigour, and describes areas where further work can strengthen this useful evaluation approach.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.355
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.215 · 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