MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094330052 · doi:10.56645/jmde.v16i36.623

Evaluation Policy and Organizational Evaluation Capacity Building: Application of an Ecological Framework across Cultural Contexts

2020· article· en· W3094330052 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hind Al Hudib, Judy Cousins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of OttawaSaudi Arabian Cultural BureauNational Science Foundation
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Focus groupConceptual frameworkCapacity buildingSituatedGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsPolitical scienceSociologyPsychologyEnvironmental resource managementGeographyBusinessSocial scienceMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Research on the role and effects of evaluation policy is limited. Some research on the policy’s role in enhancing organizational evaluation capacity (EC) is beginning to accrue but to date it has been limited largely to global Western evaluation contexts. Purpose: We employed an ecological conceptual framework arising from our own empirical research to explore the interface between evaluation policy and EC in non-western contexts. We asked—To what extent does this framework resonate across these contexts? In the selected non-Western context, what are the salient variables moderating the relationship between policy and EC in the selected contexts? Are there differences across countries? Setting: The present research is focused on perceptions about evaluation culture and experiences in two countries situated in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, namely Turkey and Jordan. Intervention: Not applicable. Research design: We conducted focus groups within the respective countries with a combined total of 18 participants associated with country-level voluntary organizations for professional evaluation (VOPE). Participants worked in government, non-governmental aid agencies, universities and private sector organizations. Data collection and analysis: We introduced the focus group participants to our ecological framework and then guided the conversation using semi-structured questions. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed and subsequently thematically analyzed using NVivo. Findings: The ecological framework was found to resonate well but the findings were weighted heavily toward macro-level contextual variables. Even though important contextual and cultural differences between Turkey and Jordan were evident, leadership emerged as a significant meso-level moderating variable in both settings. The discussion of the results included implications for ongoing research.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0100.050
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MultiDisciplinary EvaluationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207