The Delphi Technique as a Method for Increasing Inclusion in the Evaluation Process
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
Abstract: The question of how best to integrate the views of underrepresented and marginalized groups in the evaluation process is of critical importance to many evaluation theorists and practitioners. In this article the Delphi technique, a method used to achieve consensus on a set of issues with the participation of all interested parties without incident or confrontation that could compromise the validity of collected data, is offered as a procedure for enhancing marginalized group participation in the evaluation process. Demonstrated by a case example, the Delphi technique is used to help ensure that all relevant stakeholders have a voice and that sometimes-silenced voices have equal influence. As a result, it is suggested that this technique lends itself to implementation with social justice evaluation models. The benefits of and lessons learned when using the Delphi technique to promote marginalized group participation and representation in evaluations are discussed.
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 | 0.189 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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