MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366678805 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.19.004

Le benchmarking et l’amélioration continue

2004· article· en· W4366678805 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marthe Hurteau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingIdentification (biology)Process (computing)Context (archaeology)Quality (philosophy)Process managementBusinessBest practiceComputer scienceKnowledge managementMarketingManagementEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Benchmarking is driven by the trends toward continuous improvement and quality control and facilitates the identification of best practices imported and adapted by organizations that wish to improve performance. This article describes the benchmarking process illustrated by a case study. Its main contribution lies in its attention to the approach and the effort to clarify the objective of the study and identify relevant performance indicators. Finally, it offers an opportunity to reflect on a current preoccupation in evaluation literature: the impact of organizational context on the evaluation process.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.304 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207