Artificial intelligence and the future of evaluation education: Possibilities and prototypes
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 Advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) signal a paradigmatic shift with the potential for transforming many various aspects of society, including evaluation education, with implications for subsequent evaluation practice. This article explores the potential implications of AI for evaluator and evaluation education. Specifically, the article discusses key issues in evaluation education including equitable language access to evaluation education, navigating program, social science, and evaluation theory, understanding evaluation theorists and their philosophies, and case studies and simulations. The paper then considers how chatbots might address these issues, and documents efforts to prototype chatbots for three use cases in evaluation education, including a guidance counselor, teaching assistant, and mentor chatbot for young and emerging evaluations or anyone who wants to use it. The paper concludes with ruminations on additional research and activities on evaluation education topics such as how to best integrate evaluation literacy training into existing programs, making strategic linkages for practitioners, and evaluation educators.
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 | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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