Theory-based evaluations: Framing the existence of a new theory in evaluation and the rise of the 5th generation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we defend the idea that theory-based evaluations—contribution analysis, logic analysis, and realist evaluation—are complementary components of a new theory in evaluation. We also posit that we are currently observing the emergence of a fifth generation in evaluation: the explanation generation. Theory-based evaluations have featured prominently in the discourse of evaluators since the mid-1980s. They have developed mainly in response to the need for evaluation of complex interventions. In this article we analyze certain approaches that have matured in their design and application. We use the framework of Shadish et al. to analyze the ontological, epistemological, and methodological foundations of various theory-based approaches in evaluation to appraise their similarities and differences. We observe that all these approaches are grounded in critical realism. Similarities seen in their ontological, epistemological, and methodological positionings, as well as their complementarity in terms of the evaluative questions they address, suggest we may be observing the consolidation of a new theory in evaluation and the emergence of a fifth generation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.123 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it