MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366675148 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.0016.005

Evaluation Policy and Practice in Ontario

2002· article· en· W4366675148 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bob Segsworth

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptimismGovernment (linguistics)Public servicePublic policyPublic administrationService (business)Political scienceBusinessPublic relationsProgram evaluationPsychologyMarketingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article tracks the evolution of program evaluation in the Ontario public service from the adoption of a formal policy on evaluation (activity review) in 1988 to the emergence of corporate planning and an emphasis on performance management under the current government. It argues that there are reasons for optimism regarding an increased role for evaluation in Ontario, but suggests that there remain several impediments to the development of an evaluation culture within the Ontario public service.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.560
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.011 · 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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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