Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research and scholarship on ECB is essential to the continued growth and development of our profession, as its focus on learning helps to expand our thinking about evaluation influence at both individual and organizational levels.The editors of this volume do a wonderful job blending articles that speak to what ECB is, and what it looks like in practice across a diversity of organizations.The volume contains three full length articles and five practice notes, with a special focus on examples from the evaluation capacity case challenge put on by the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University.I am especially thankful to the editors and authors for sharing their reflections about their experiences with ECB, as I am certain that CJPE readers will gain valuable knowledge about ECB and how it can enhance individual and organizational learning goals in community-based organizations.
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 | 0.014 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.031 |
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".