MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946752631 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.43118

Perceived Facilitators and Barriers to Evaluative Thinking in a Small Development NGO

2019· article· en· W2946752631 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stephanie K. Lu, Susan J. Elliott, Christopher M. Perlman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)SustainabilityProcess (computing)PsychologyQuality (philosophy)Political sciencePublic relationsBusinessComputer scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The Global Goals come with challenging implications for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in international development and their capacity for high-quality evaluation practice and evaluative thinking. NGOs are pressured to work efficiently, be accountable to donors and beneficiaries, and demonstrate impact. They must also critically examine the underlying assumptions behind their work, or else the sustainability of their work becomes jeopardized. Using previously collected evaluation data from a small NGO in water-based development, this paper highlights perceived facilitators and barriers to evaluative thinking and where they might occur in the evaluation process for an NGO constrained by time and resources.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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