Developing Evaluation Capacity Building Competencies: Participant Reflections From the Evaluation Capacity Case Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2023, McGill University’s Max Bell School of Public Policy hosted the inaugural Evaluation Capacity Case Challenge (EC 3 ) competition with a cohort of 19 selected graduate students and early-career professionals studying or working in Canada or the United States. It was a multifaceted learning opportunity for participants to expand evaluation capacity building (ECB) competencies and served as a bridge between formal education and real-world practice. This practice note offers reflections from five students representing all teams and one coach on how EC 3 supported competency development as outlined by the Canadian Evaluation Society and the American Evaluation Association. Focused on domains related to professional reflection, technical and methodological skills, situational context, as well as management and interpersonal skills, this article explores the role of EC 3 in honing skills specific to ECB, preparing evaluators to excel in their roles and champion ECB in diverse and evolving contexts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".