MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation and Measurement

2018· other· en· W2972030307 on OpenAlex
Alexander Buhmann, Fraser Likely

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCornerstoneRelevance (law)Strategic communicationProcess (computing)Field (mathematics)Strategic planningReflection (computer programming)Political scienceProcess managementKnowledge managementPublic relationsManagement scienceSociologyManagementEngineeringComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation is the cornerstone of successful strategic communication. It is the basis on which to assess whether and how any purposeful use of communication by an organization contributes to fulfilling the organization's mission, strategy, and goal attainment. For over 50 years, evaluation has been a major focus of both the professional and academic debate in strategic communication. The relevance of this debate has grown in recent decades as budgets in various strategic communication domains continue to increase, in turn raising pressure to deliver hard evidence on how communication contributes to organizational goals. This entry addresses the main strands of the evaluation debate by: (i) contextualizing evaluation of strategic communication within the overall strategic management process and, on this basis, introducing the basic types, units, and stages of evaluation; (ii) tracing the historical development of the broad evaluation debate; and (iii) introducing critical points of reflection on the state of the field in research and practice.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.253 · 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