Meeting at the Crossroads: Interactivity, Technology, and Evaluation Utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article is a review and integration of evaluation utilization literature with a new focus on the use of technology to increase evaluation utility. Scholarship on evaluation utilization embodies one of the major and ongoing quandaries in the evaluation profession: What constitutes usefulness and relevance to stakeholders? We think that a constructivist lens is helpful in making sense of the trajectory this literature has taken, where what is “useful” and what culminates in “use” have become much more flexible notions that are in a constant state of negotiation between evaluators and evaluation stakeholders. We posit that it may be important for evaluators who are closely engaged with stakeholders to pay greater attention to this interactivity to build a common vision of what is “useful” at that moment in time. While this is no small task, we posit that evaluators may have something to gain by exploring the wealth of digital technologies and social media tools that are available. The use of these tools in local level, participatory-oriented contexts may be valuable for encouraging interactivity, potentially encouraging learning, creativity, and ownership. This article aims to stress that integrating technology into everyday evaluation practice, where possible, may ultimately enhance evaluation usefulness and relevance.
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 | 0.042 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".