MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366384698 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.0025.005

Successful Evaluation Management: Engaging Mind and Spirit

2011· article· en· W4366384698 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Penny Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)Quality (philosophy)Affect (linguistics)PsychologyKey (lock)Evaluation methodsEngineering ethicsBusinessProcess managementPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceEpistemologyEngineeringPhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The key to a successful or unsuccessful evaluation is often the quality of the relationship between evaluators and their clients. This article examines the social rather than technical aspects of evaluation and how this can affect the outcome. The author discusses the critical interactions and responsibilities of the evaluation manager and the evaluation practitioner when an evaluation is contracted out. Practice guidance is offered in how to manage an evaluation contract to a successful conclusion.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.013
Scholarly communication0.0200.006
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.524
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.001 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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