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 OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.313
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