MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W347468065 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.0023.005

The Road to Evaluation Capacity Building: A Case Study from Israel

2009· article· en· W347468065 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Barbara Rosenstein, Pnina Elal Englert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Presentation (obstetrics)CurriculumOutcome (game theory)Relation (database)Capacity buildingPsychologyPolitical scienceMathematics educationSociologyMedical educationPedagogyEconomicsHistoryComputer scienceMedicineLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: We present an empirical case study of an Evaluation Capacity Building (ECB) initiative in a school in Israel. First, we tell the story of the school’s 10-year journey toward the successful integration of evaluation through ECB. Then we examine the case according to King’s (2002) four elements of ECB: teachers, students, the curriculum, and the context. We present four concrete examples of evaluations conducted at the school illustrating how these elements influenced the results of ECB. We follow this presentation with a discussion of the case in relation to other ECB checklists. After thorough and systematic investigation, we believe that through this case we can learn more about the factors that contribute to or inhibit the successful outcome of an ECB effort in schools.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.587
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.030 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207