MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945132513 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.43319

Secure Data Handling: An Essential Competence for Evaluators

2019· article· en· W2945132513 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidentialityHarmCompetence (human resources)Computer securityData collectionInformation securityData securityInternet privacyKnowledge managementBusinessComputer sciencePublic relationsPsychologySociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyEncryption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Since it is paramount that the rights and welfare of evaluation participants and stakeholders be respected, we argue that the abilities and knowledge necessary to appropriately safeguard data ought to be considered an essential competence for evaluators. Building from past contributions, and in consultation with research ethics and data security experts from our home institution, recommended practices in the collection, handling, and storage of evaluation data were identified. A three-dimensional framework for secure data handling was developed, considering type of information handled, harm posed by a potential confidentiality breach, and corresponding steps to securing confidential information.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.261 · 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