MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946489075 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.43050

Principles, Approaches, and Methods for Evaluation in Indigenous Contexts: A Grey Literature Scoping Review

2019· article· en· W2946489075 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrey literatureIndigenousInterpretation (philosophy)Management scienceEngineering ethicsSociologyPsychologyComputer scienceMEDLINEPolitical scienceEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article describes findings from a scoping review of the grey literature to identify principles, approaches, methods, tools, and frameworks for conducting program evaluation in Indigenous contexts, reported from 2000–2015 in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia. It includes consultation with key informants to validate and enrich interpretation of findings. The fifteen guiding principles, and the approaches, methods, tools, and frameworks identified through this review may be used as a starting point for evaluators and communities to initiate discussion about how to conduct their evaluation in their communities, and which approaches, methods, tools, or frameworks would be contextually appropriate.

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)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.474
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.108 · 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