MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392681658 · doi:10.22318/icls2023.645029

Situating Evaluation: Theory Driven Evaluation in Practice

2023· article· en· W4392681658 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joanna Weidler‐Lewis, Jimmy Frickey, Maxime Goulet-Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings. · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoethnographyKnowledge managementComputer scienceSociologyEngineering ethicsManagement scienceSocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theory driven evaluation is a social practice that contributes to the consequential production of people, knowledge, and resources.Evaluators are overlooked actors supporting the Learning Sciences community.Our poster explores how theory driven evaluation has been taken up in Canada and the United States.Using collective autoethnography, we show how evaluation is implicated in learning as becoming.We conclude with suggestions for how to engage with evaluation to support better designs for learning and becoming.

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)0.306
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.315
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3060.315
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.023
Scholarly communication0.0260.020
Open science0.0050.014
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.318
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings.Same topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207