MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392608258 · doi:10.56279/tjpsd.v30i2.221

Opportunities and Challenges for Professionalizing Monitoring and Evaluation Practice: A Global Overview and Perspectives

2023· article· en· W4392608258 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zabron Kengera, Clement Mromba

Bibliographic record

VenueTanzania Journal for Population studies and Development · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizations and countries have, in the last one decade or so, been undertaking different efforts and strategies to professionalize monitoring and evaluation as a strategy to improve the quality of its services, and to defend and protect the welfare of commissioners and professionals. This article provides the global trend of professionalization of the field of monitoring and evaluation. The article has generally shown that professionalization of monitoring and evaluation is a necessary strategy for improving the quality of services and products and wider monitoring and evaluation. The adoption of professionalization is determined by a number of factors; and particularly political will, institutionalization, level of maturity of monitoring and evaluation associations and networks, results-based culture, and the maturity of capacity building programmes. Comparatively, North American countries have recorded tremendous achievements in the professionalization of monitoring and evaluation; with Canada reaching the stage of accreditation. Generally in Africa, South Africa, and to a certain extent Ghana, have recorded significant achievements in professionalizing monitoring and evaluation due to the factors just mentioned. In East Africa, the level of monitoring and evaluation professionalization and institutionalization is relatively higher in Uganda and Kenya compared to Tanzania where, despite a few obstacles, there has been a combined effort from the government, TANEA, members of parliament and training institutions to professionalize and institutionalize monitoring and evaluation. Substantial achievement has been made, including -- but not limited to -- improvement of lobbying and support from both the parliament and the president’s office, increased number of short- and long-term training programmes and atheist partial institutionalization of monitoring and evaluation within the government systems.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0140.011
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.752
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

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 venueTanzania Journal for Population studies and DevelopmentSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207