MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384704291 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.38.1.ed-en

Editor’s Remarks

2023· article· en· W4384704291 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jill Anne Chouinard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This issue of CJPE reflects the importance of context, community, voice and relationships in evaluation practice, whether in an Indigenous urban community in the US, a virtual environment during the pandemic, a provincial office in PEI, or in communities in Southeastern Africa.Our need to build understanding and connection grounds our practice.I am particularly delighted to introduce this issue of CJPE, as it provides our first Indigenous publications in the new section of the journal "Roots and Relations: Celebrating Good Medicine in Indigenous Evaluation," co-edited by Larry Bremner and Nicole Bowman.Tere are three submissions in our new Roots and Relations section: a submission by Sofa Locklear, Martell Hesketh, Natalyn Begay, Jennifer Brixey, Abigail Echo-Hawk, and Rosalina James describes the use of an urban Indigenous framework designed to empower the community to reclaim their narratives and tell their stories.Te paper by Melanie Nadeau, Vanessa Tibbitts, Ryan Eagle, and Gretchen Dobervich describes the use of an Indigenous evaluation framework to evaluate a state-wide health improvement plan.Te third submission is a poem and narrative piece co-written by Katie Boone and Sharon Attipoe-Dorcoo.T ese three submissions inspire us to refect on evaluation as a way to build connections to people and place, build capacity, and empower people to share their stories and create their own narratives.Tere are also four other papers in the issue.Te article by Muazzez Nihal Öykü Ülker, Esa Kerimoğlu and Şaban Berk discusses the use of metaevaluation as a resource for assessing evaluation quality by helping to inform evaluators of the utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy of their work.Te next article is a practice note by Bobby Tomas Cameron that describes an evaluation policy development process that, through the co-development of codifed standards and guidelines, led to new connections among coworkers and helped build evaluation capacity within the organization.Te practice note written by Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa describes a baseline study that used a participant coded narrative process to understand how people in the Limpopo and Okavango River Basins understand resilience across the diversity of their contexts.Te third and f nal practice note by Paisley Worthington, Cheryl Mak, Michael Holden, and Michelle Searle explores the use of the Collaborative Approaches to Evaluation (CAE) principles to explore the nature of connection and relationship building in a virtual environment.We also have three book reviews in this issue: Van den Berg, Hawking and Stame (

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.302
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207