MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401364057 · doi:10.3138/cjpe-2024-0024

What Can Be Accomplished in 25 Years: In Memoriam of Dr. Stafford Hood

2024· article· en· W4401364057 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ayesha S. Boyce

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenealogyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr. Stafford Hood left this earthly realm on Sunday, January 15th, 2023. His sudden passing created ripples of grief and rumination throughout the evaluation community. Hood was an evaluation and assessment expert, scholar, practitioner, teacher, and innovator. Last year, 2023, marked the 25th anniversary of his talk “Responsive Evaluation Amistad Style,” where he introduced the term “culturally responsive evaluation.” There have been a plethora of tributes to him (see the Hood Obituary, Center for Culturally Responsive Evaluation and Assessment [CREA] Statement, University of Illinois, CREA–Dublin, M. Q. Patton Video, American Evaluation Association Blog). Thus, as a board member of the Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, CREA affiliate faculty member, and mentee of Dr. Hood, the author humbly offers some brief professional and personal reflections on his legacy 1 year after his passing. How much time is needed to uplift unheard voices, rectify years of erasure, change theory, shift praxis, connect scholars, and mentor the next generation? Dr. Stafford Hood accomplished all of this and transformed the landscape of our field in a mere 25 years. He introduced a revolution, rectified years of erasure, created a movement, and solidified his legacy.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.010
Scholarly communication0.0160.016
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0110.054
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207