In Plain Sight or Just Plain Obscured?: A Review of Professional Evaluation Associations’ Frameworks for Evaluation Practice Supporting Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI)
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
With an increasing focus on integrating equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in evaluation practice and products, there is an accompanying need to examine what structural supports exist that are provided by professional evaluation associations. This contribution systematically examines the competencies of five professional evaluation associations from Africa, Australia, Europe and North America to identify how evaluators can align integrating EDI in thei evaluation practice to professional competency domains. Also offered is a summary of thoughts on training opportunities for integrating EDI given review findings. Professional evaluation association websites were reviewed during May through to July of 2022. Content was downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet, and organized for EDI review purposes by competency domains, subdomains which occurred during August and September of 2022. The presentation of EDI content in evaluator competencies was found to be highly varied; variations were found in tone/theme, principles, and domains and subdomains.
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 | 0.317 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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