MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366453107 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.023.004

L’utilisation de l’évaluation fondée sur la théorie du programme comme stratégie d’application des connaissances issues de la recherche

2008· article· en· W4366453107 on OpenAlexaffvenue
François Chagnon, Marc Daigle, M Gervais, Janie Houle, Véronique Béguet

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-QuébecUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementTacit knowledgeValuation (finance)SociologyPsychologyBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Research on knowledge application and program theory-driven evaluation are two types of activity associated with research which involve close collaboration between researchers-evaluators and stakeholders and also facilitate maximal use of research results. In this article, first we succinctly present theoretical models of knowledge application emphasizing the conceptual bases and strategic elements common to both approaches. Specifically we examine the crucial role of tacit knowledge and distinguish between the individual and organizational levels in the utilization of knowledge generated by research and evaluation. We examine and discuss the advantages of program theory-driven evaluation as a knowledge application strategy. We suggest that conceptual developments in the field of knowledge application research can also contribute to the advancement of program evaluation.

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)0.072
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0720.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.806
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.230 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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