Teaching Africa-Rooted Evaluation: Using a “Model Client” Innovation to Help Shift the Locus of Knowledge Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Evaluators working on the African continent are increasingly tasked with reflecting critically on how they might integrate African methods, culture, and knowledge systems into both evaluation teaching and practice. This practice note reflects on one small but potentially significant step toward this: revisiting how we deliver our Principles of Programme Evaluation module at the University of Cape Town. Our idea, which we call a “model client” approach, was to bring on board the evaluation client as a co-learner in the classroom environment. Through a series of instructor-facilitated client-student engagements, which unfolded within the classroom space, we (the instructors, students, and client) arrived at a co-created understanding of the program logic and co-determined the evaluation questions and evaluation approach. Key challenges in implementing this approach included managing the client’s sense of vulnerability, student inexperience in evaluation theory and practice, and a conspicuous shortage of African-generated evaluation case studies and texts.
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 | 0.044 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".