Learning by linking the Canadian Evaluation Society's student case competition within a graduate evaluation course
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 There are many ways to intertwine theoretical and applied learning to nurture the competencies required to conduct evaluation. Experiential learning opportunities remain a priority for many evaluation educators who are helping learners apply foundational skills and knowledge to practice. Evaluators develop their professional expertise in diverse venues, including through experience, through professional learning, or, as we highlight in this chapter, in graduate school. Incorporating experiential learning from a professional association into a formal graduate course requires a willingness to blend university course expectations and activities with collaborative learning experiences. Using reflective dialogue and poetry enacted through dialogic analysis and reflection, we examine enduring perceptions and learning activated from student participation in the Canadian Evaluation Society's national evaluation case competition as part of evaluation education situated within a formal university graduate course. Weaving five voices representing learners, case study coach, and course instructor, we discuss how the evaluation competition was used to deepen understanding and develop evaluator competencies.
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 | 0.082 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it