Lessons learned from dual site formative evaluations of Countering violent extremism (CVE) programming co-led by Canadian police
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on lessons learned from recently completed formative evaluations of police co-led CVE programming in Toronto, Ontario and Calgary, Alberta, this research aims to underscore the importance of, and provide technical guidance on, evaluation and reporting standards in the context of multi-agency CVE programming – which ultimately will help to facilitate the identification and replication of good practice. The results of the evaluative process highlight the need for greater articulation regarding intended program outcomes as well as program theorising regarding the underlying mechanisms that connect program activities and outputs with said intended outcomes. Both evaluations also demonstrated the importance of prioritising collaboration at both the evaluation-level and the program-level to facilitate successful and robust program implementation. As such, this study also yields findings that speak to the beneficial role that the evaluative process itself can play in facilitating the evolution of CVE programming.
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 | 0.195 | 0.289 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".