MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010351954 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.68837

Indigenous Evaluation in the Northwest Territories: Opportunities and Challenges

2020· article· en· W3010351954 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Debbie DeLancey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousService (business)Service delivery frameworkTraditional knowledgeService providerCulturally appropriateEconomic growthPolitical scienceBusinessEnvironmental planningGeographyMedicineMarketingEconomicsGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: There is increasing interest by governments and other service providers in the potential for Indigenous evaluation methods and approaches to support the evaluation of programs and services in a way that is culturally appropriate and responsive. Indigenous governments and organizations are using Indigenous evaluation methods and approaches to inform their own program and service delivery. This article explores the current status of Indigenous evaluation in the Northwest Territories, the opportunities for expanding the use of Indigenous evaluation, and some of the challenges that must be addressed.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.003
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.640
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.141 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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