O Relatorio de Avaliação Externa do Programa Voluntariado do Instituto C&A: um estudo meta-avaliativo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente artigo apresenta uma meta-avaliação sobre o Relatorio de Avaliação Externa do Programa do Voluntariado do Instituto C&A, na area de Responsabilidade Social e Empresarial, cuja empresa atua no ramo varejista de vestuario e calcados, na area de Responsabilidade Social e Empresarial de uma empresa, e em que o cujo objeto foi produzido realizado no periodo entre 2013-2015. Foram utilizados como referencias os criterios da autora Davidson (2005) compostos por validade, utilidade, conduta, credibilidade e custos, e em sua aplicabilidade no contexto meta-avaliativo, atingiram seus objetivos e obtiveram bons resultados. No entanto, por conta das conclusoes e recomendações apresentadas levou-se em consideração as observacoes indicadas, com o intuito de contribuir para a melhoria do Relatorio e apontando os ajustes que devem ser implementados. a fim de aprimorar o nivel da meta-avaliação realizada.Palavras-chave: Meta-avaliação, Avaliação de Programas, Voluntariado, Responsabilidade Social e Empresarial.
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 | 0.034 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".