MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401363543 · doi:10.3138/cjpe-2023-0021

Breaking the Mould? Expanding our Conceptualization of Evaluator Competencies

2024· article· en· W4401363543 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ann Marie Castleman, Leslie A. Fierro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationPsychologyEngineering ethicsSociologyComputer scienceEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation capacity building (ECB) is an area of practice that many evaluators engage in. Previous ECB scholars have described ECB as distinct from the practice of evaluation, although the two are related. This research empirically examined competencies needed for practicing ECB, why those competencies are important, and how expert practitioners obtained those competencies. The findings suggest the role of an evaluation capacity builder is different from the role of an evaluator. The authors attempt to make the case that recognizing this difference is critical for the professionalization of the field.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.047
Scholarly communication0.0120.019
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.404
GPT teacher head0.559
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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207