Latent Profiles of Evaluators’ Self-Reported Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Presented are the results of a study using latent profile analysis to describe the self-reported practices of 138 evaluators. Four classes emerged and were labeled (a) indistinct pattern of practice, (b) method-focused, (c) user-focused, and (d) robust pattern of practice. Evaluators in the “indistinct pattern of practice” class had mean item responses closest to zero relative to the other three classes, suggesting relatively weak associations with the practices described by the study instrument. The “method-focused” class had strong and distinct preferences for using particular methods. The “user-focused” class placed high importance on the role of the evaluator as facilitator, and was concerned with attaining a high level of stakeholder/participant involvement. The “robust pattern of practice” class evaluators showed a high degree of rigor in their reported patterns of practice, specifically as they are prescribed by evaluation theorists. The four profiles were distinguished by years of evaluation experience, degree attainment, and internal/external evaluator status.
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 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 | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".