MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796920759 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.43178

Linking Evaluation to Expenditure Reviews: Neither Realistic nor a Good Idea

2018· article· en· W2796920759 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Mayne

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristian ministryPublic economicsPsychological interventionEnergy expenditureEconomicsEvaluation methodsPositive economicsActuarial sciencePolitical sciencePsychologyLawEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: It is frequently assumed and not contested that evaluation should play a significant role in budgeting and, more specifically, in expenditure reviews. This article argues otherwise: that evaluation is neither fit nor designed to play such a role. Rather, if there is a desire by budget officials for credible evidence on the performance of interventions, then they need to invest in a different form of evaluation, namely, expenditure evaluations, separate and distinct from ministry-based evaluation.

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)0.627
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.809
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6270.809
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.027
Scholarly communication0.0310.047
Open science0.0050.012
Research integrity0.0190.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.286 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207