Thinking with complexity in evaluation: A case study review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adopting complexity thinking in the design, implementation and evaluation of health and social development programmes is of increasing interest. Understanding institutional contexts in which these programmes are located directly influences shaping and eventual uptake of evaluations and relevant findings. A nuanced appreciation of the relationship between complexity, institutional arrangements and evaluation theory and practice provides an opportunity to optimise both programme design and eventual success. However, the application of complexity and systems thinking within programme design and evaluation is variously understood. Some understand complexity as the multiple constituent aspects within a system, while others take a more sociological approach, understanding interactions between beliefs, ideas and systems as mechanisms of change. This article adopts an exploratory approach to examine complexity thinking in the relational, recursive interactions between context and project design, implementation and evaluation. In doing so, common terms will be used to demonstrate the nature of shared aspects of complexity across apparently different projects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".