MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903094745 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.42205

L’implication des parties prenantes dans la démarche évaluative : facteurs de succès et leçons à retenir

2018· article· en· W2903094745 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Isabelle Bourgeois, Marthe Hurteau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderThematic analysisKey (lock)Political sciencePublic relationsBusinessPsychologySociologyKnowledge managementComputer scienceQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Our cross-cutting overview of the three papers that make up this thematic segment shows that each of the papers addresses the issue of stakeholder involvement quite differently from the others. We focus here on the key messages from each of these papers in order to highlight success factors and lessons learned for stakeholder participation in evaluation. Success factors related to collaborative approaches to evaluation are also presented throughout the analysis, based on the “Principles guiding collaborative approaches to evaluation” recently published by Shulha, Whitmore, Cousins, Gilbert et Al Hudib (2016).

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 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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.410
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.130 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207