The Logical Framework Model and the Theory of Change: Bases for the Strategic Planning of Innovation with Social Impact, in a Mexican Public Research Center
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. A conceptual proposal model based on the Logical Framework Model and the Theory of Change for the social impact strategic planning of innovation in the Public Research Centers (CPIs) of the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT), Mexico.Methodology. The study implied the context of the CPIs, with a bibliometric study of the Logical Framework and the Theory of Change in the second semester of 2022.Findings. As a theoretical contribution (Scientia), a conceptual proposal model, based on the Logical Framework Model and Theory of Change for the social impact strategic planning of innovation in the CPIs. As a practical contribution (Praxis), the conceptual proposal model relationship with the processes of a CPI that requiring clarity and speed for a highly changing environment.Originality. The research is valuable, original, and unprecedented for combining the Theoretical Framework and the Theory of Change that produce a social impact in a CPI.Conclusions and limitations.• Logical Framework Model and Theory of Change are possible to be included in CPI processes to achieve the social impact strategic planning of innovation.• The limitations are the knowledge and documentary interpretation of the processes of a CPI in social impact strategic planning of innovation.• Future studies propose to carry out a practical intervention that allows the validation of the study.
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it