MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367030214 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.025.004

De l’usage des indicateurs qualitatifs en évaluation et en suivi de gestion dans l’administration publique

2010· article· en· W4367030214 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Samuel Legault-Mercier, Michèle St‐Pierre

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Vieille-Capitale
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfusionPolitical scienceWelfare economicsBusinessPsychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: With the advent of management by results in public administration, the demand for indicators has increased. The notion of indicator has traditionally been quantitative; however, since the predilection for mixed methods emerged in evaluation, indicators identified as qualitative have been developed. With the ensuing confusion in the definition and use of qualitative indicators, what is the current situation? To clarify their use, this article suggests a classification for the different uses of qualitative indicators and a method for integrating this type of indicator in 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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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