Integrating Evaluative Inquiry into the Organizational Culture: A Review and Synthesis of the Knowledge Base
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to explore, through an extensive review and integration of recent scholarly literature, the conceptual interconnections and linkages among developments in the domains of evaluation utilization, evaluation capacity building, and organizational learning. Our goal is to describe and critique the current state of the knowledge base concerning the general problem of integrating evaluation into the organizational culture. We located and reviewed 36 recent empirical studies and used them to elaborate a conceptual framework that was partially based on prior work. Methodologically, our results show that research in this area is underdeveloped. Substantively, they show that organizational readiness for evaluation may be favourably influenced through direct evaluation capacity building (ECB) initiatives and indirectly through doing and using evaluation. We discuss these results in terms of an agenda for ongoing research and implications for practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it