MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391657081 · doi:10.18260/1-2--38449

The Use of Mixed Methods in Academic Program Evaluation

2024· article· en· W4391657081 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael O’Connor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Michael O'Connor, Retired Professional Civil Engineer (Maryland and California), M.ASCE, is a member of the ASCE Committee on Developing Leaders, History and Heritage, Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge (CEBoK), and Engineering Grades.Michael has been a practicing Civil Engineer with over 50 years of engineering, construction, and project management experience split equally between the public and private sectors.Programs ranged from the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit district's 1990's expansions in the East Bay and SFO Airport at three billion to the New Starts program for the Federal Transit Administration with over a hundred projects and $85 billion in construction value.At the latter, he also acted as source selection board chairman and program COTR for $200 plus million in task order contracts for engineering services.Working for the third-largest transit agency in the United States, the Los Angeles County MTA, Michael managed bus vehicle engineering for $1 billion in new acquisitions and post-delivery maintenance support for 2300 vehicles with some of the most complex technology (natural gas engines and embedded systems) in the US transit industry in the 1990s.Michael also has extensive experience as an instructor at New York University (five years), Howard University (four years), and

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.638
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.685
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6380.685
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.009
Bibliometrics0.0230.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0100.011
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.782
GPT teacher head0.720
Teacher spread0.062 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvaluation and Performance Assessment→French-language works237,207→