MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317381171 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.74487

New Insights for Tracking and Reporting Milestones

2022· article· en· W4317381171 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessica Renger, Ralph Renger, Richard Van Eck, Marc D. Basson, Jirina Renger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTracking (education)Reflection (computer programming)Process (computing)Metric (unit)Developmental MilestoneKey (lock)Critical reflectionPsychologyComputer scienceOperations managementPedagogyEngineeringComputer securityDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Despite being a common evaluation metric, milestones are poorly defined, and guidance for their use is underdeveloped in the evaluation literature. This practice note attempts to address this oversight by providing evaluation-specific guidance for tracking and reporting milestones. Using a case study, we share our initial approach to tracking and reporting milestones, as well as how critical reflection guided by the evaluation standards provided us with key insights that allowed us to make improvements to our initial process. We hope this practice note acts as a springboard for elevating the critical dialogue surrounding milestones in the evaluation literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.619
GPT teacher head0.573
Teacher spread0.045 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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