MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366450272 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.022.009

What an Eight-Year-Old Can Teach Us About Logic Modelling and Mainstreaming

2007· article· en· W4366450272 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

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHindsight biasNarrativeProcess (computing)MainstreamingComputer scienceSimplicityPoint (geometry)Management scienceSWORDProcess managementEngineering ethicsEpistemologyPsychologyEngineeringMathematics educationCognitive psychologyProgramming languageMathematicsSpecial educationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article presents a short case narrative, the purpose of which is to illustrate that complex evaluation methodologies such as logic modelling can be simplified to the point where a child can be guided through the process quickly. However, the case narrative also serves to highlight the potential consequences to program development and evaluation activities when the process is oversimplified. Like a double-edged sword, simplifying the process encourages more organizations to use a logic model to develop and evaluate programs, but, in hindsight, the simplicity may lead to program architectures that have little opportunity of demonstrating success or to evaluations that may be off the mark.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.229 · 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