MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014556897 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4176

Outcome Mapping: Documenting Process in the Métis Settlements Life Skills Journey Project

2020· article· en· W3014556897 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brent Hammer, Fay Fletcher, Rebecca Shortt, Mandy MacRae, Alicia Hibbert

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of AlbertaNova Southeastern UniversityAlberta Health Services
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)Settlement (finance)Project teamProcess (computing)Identification (biology)Human settlementPsychologyProcess managementSociologyKnowledge managementEngineeringGeographyComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mapping serves as a metaphor for where we are now, where we have been, and where we are going. In this paper the authors illustrate the use of outcome mapping as a methodological framework for documenting the planning, monitoring, and evaluation process for the Métis Settlements Life Skills Journey (MSLSJ) project. The MSLSJ is a multi-year, multi-site, multi-method research project. It is centered on building relationships and facilitating knowledge exchange between the University of Alberta team, Métis Settlement Councils and administrators, and Settlement members. We highlight how the outcome mapping framework enables us to document project processes through the identification of key boundary partners and strategies in support of learning. Outcome mapping became a reflective and strategic tool for the MSLSJ project, reflecting on six years of data from seven sites, representing over 430 participants, and guiding the project forward.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.614
GPT teacher head0.664
Teacher spread0.051 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207