MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235318396 · doi:10.1177/109821400002100306

Planning for Community-based Evaluation

2000· article· en· W4235318396 on OpenAlexaff
Rhonda Cockerill, Ted Myers, Dan Allman

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Evaluation · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgram evaluationUnit (ring theory)Management scienceSet (abstract data type)Process (computing)Conflict resolutionProcess managementPsychologyComputer scienceSociologyPolitical scienceBusinessEngineeringMathematics educationSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a planning guide that can be used to improve community-based evaluation. The planning guide consists of a set of questions that need to be discussed with all stakeholders. It covers issues relating to the nature and purpose of a community-based evaluation project, research methods and approaches, participation and decision-making, conflict and conflict resolution, and dissemination and use of results. The planning guide was developed through our experiences in an HIV/AIDS research and evaluation unit and a review of the literature. If community-based evaluators keep in mind the questions in this planning guide and discuss them early on with stakeholders, the evaluation process should benefit.

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)0.187
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.237
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1870.237
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0130.012
Open science0.0060.015
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.012

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 head0.355
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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