MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362672166 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v16n3p34

Monitoring and Evaluation Budgetary Practices on Project Service Delivery

2023· article· en· W4362672166 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaAccountabilityNonprobability samplingData collectionService delivery frameworkDescriptive statisticsPopulationTransparency (behavior)PsychologyMedical educationService (business)SociologyBusinessMarketingStatisticsMedicineMathematicsComputer scienceSocial sciencePolitical scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful execution of projects is critical to the development and strategic variations within an institution. However, there have been setbacks due to the deficiencies in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices. M&E is an important part of any project’s success story because they oversee project effectiveness, efficiency, transparency, and accountability, among other things. A background review discloses the insufficiency of M&E practices within the institution. The purpose of the study was to examine how M&E budgetary practices affect project service delivery. The study’s theoretical foundation was based on resource-based theory. A descriptive study design was employed targeting administrators, project managers, nurses, chief of centers, and data collection staff. The study focused on a target population of 140 people. The study employed a sample size of 103 respondents using Fisher’s exact formula. The researcher exploited the purposive sampling technique during the study. Data collection instruments administered were questionnaires and key informant interviews. Reliability of instruments was through internal consistency using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient of 0.70 or greater while the validity of these instruments was done using content, face, and constructs validity. Quantitative data from questionnaires were analyzed using descriptive statistics used including frequencies, standard deviation, mean, and percentages with the aid of a statistical package for social science (SPSS). Pearson Coefficient Correlation and Multiple regression models were used to make inferences and generalizations. The hypotheses test was graded at the 0.05 level of significance. The study findings indicated that there was a statistically strong significant positive effect of M&E budgetary practices on project service delivery (r=0.622; p<0.05). These findings indicated the alternate hypotheses was accepted and the null hypotheses was rejected. M&E budget serves as a cost and revenue indicator for project managers’ daily operational activities. M&E budget is used to provide information and support management decisions, as well as monitor and control the organization throughout the year. This study recommends that the CBCHS institute budgetary adjustments in the budgetary processes and practices. This will help to predict the future expenses, and costs and accordingly work towards the expected revenues as well as cater adequately on the allocated resources.

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 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.277
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.179 · 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