MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366384075 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.021.005

Discours qui résistent à l’objectivation : que peut-on en tirer pour l’évaluation?

2006· article· en· W4366384075 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Astrid Brousselle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)SympathyPoliticsPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)SociologyWelfare economicsSocial psychologyPsychologyPublic relationsEpistemologyPhilosophyLawEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: When using interviews as a data-collection method, the evaluator must pay attention to the distortions that may be created. Evaluation is a political exercise and, in a political context, may favour the emergence of statements that represent resistance to objectifying their meaning. Based on the interviews conducted during the evaluation of the implementation of the UNAIDS Drug Access Initiative in Chile, the article illustrates different tactics participants use that may win the evaluator’s sympathy or block access to information, and it presents a method of analysis the evaluator can use to give meaning to such statements.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.287
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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