Caractéristiques organisationnelles qui influencent le renforcement des capacités en évaluation chez les organismes communautaires du Québec : une recension des écrits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have conceptualized evaluation capacity for community organizations (COs), and even fewer in the specific context of COs in Québec. The objective of this article, therefore, is twofold: 1) to identify barriers to, and opportunities for, building evaluation capacity among OCs and 2) to verify the extent to which an existing conceptual framework of organizational evaluation capacity established by Isabelle Bourgeois and J. Bradley Cousins could be useful in its current form for understanding the evaluation capacity needs of COs in Québec. We first conducted a review of the scientific literature to identify the barriers and opportunities for evaluation capacity building in OCs, and analyzed the results of the literature review against the conceptual framework. Our results point to the fact that Bourgeois and Cousins’ framework is appropriate for understanding the key factors influencing the capacity to do and to use evaluations among OCs. Additional efforts would, however, be necessary to improve the framework’s compatibility with the practices and values of COs in Québec.Les capacités en évaluation sont peu étudiées et encore moins conceptualisées en fonction du contexte particulier des organismes communautaires (OC) du Québec. Ainsi, l’objectif de cet article est double : 1) identifier chez les OC les barrières et les éléments qui facilitent le renforcement des capacités en évaluation et 2) vérifier dans quelle mesure un cadre conceptuel établi par Isabelle Bourgeois et J. Bradley Cousins pourrait s’avérer propice dans sa forme actuelle pour l’analyse des capacités en évaluation du milieu communautaire québécois. Nous avons d’abord identifié les barrières et les éléments qui facilitent le renforcement des capacités en évaluation des OC à partir d’une recherche documentaire d’articles scientifiques pertinents pour ensuite effectuer une analyse à partir du cadre conceptuel choisi. Nos résultats démontrent que le cadre conceptuel de Bourgeois et Cousins est pertinent pour répertorier les facteurs clés influençant la capacité à effectuer et à utiliser l’évaluation chez les OC. Des efforts supplémentaires seraient toutefois nécessaires pour améliorer la compatibilité du cadre conceptuel avec les pratiques et valeurs du milieu communautaire québécois.
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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".