Program Evaluation in Canada Seen through the Articles Published in CJPE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In honour of the 20th anniversary of The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, this article presents a retrospective of publication trends from the first edition in Spring 1986 to Fall 2004. This review entailed creating a database by coding all of the abstracts and, when necessary, the full article, according to criteria such as the authors, their origins, the purpose of the articles, the public policy sectors presented, the methodology, and the type of evaluation discussed. As anticipated, the publication trends tend to reflect broader developments in the field of evaluation practice and theory in Canada and abroad. From utilization debates to capacity-building issues, from auditing to empowerment evaluation and beyond, the articles in CJPE sometimes lead and sometimes follow new trends in the evaluation field. Over the years, authors affiliated with universities have progressively increased their share of articles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.073 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".