Planting the Seed: Learning From Co-Constructing Program Theory Within an Urban Indigenous Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This evaluation work is grounded in the Northern Door: Be on a Good Journey, where the authors share their process for cultivating a place-based program theory for urban Indigenous land-based initiatives in the Waterloo Region, Ontario. This process was an essential first step to an ongoing evaluation project assessing the implementation and early outcomes of two programs for Indigenous children and youth. The authors embarked on this journey recognizing the need for relevant, place-based understandings of context that honour the philosophical and theoretical differences of Indigenous communities compared to Western knowledge. Drawing on guidance in both evaluation theory and Indigenous scholarship, four iterative sharing circles with key Indigenous community members were held to discuss the following thematic topics: program aims, activities, assessment needs, and initial theory assembly. Little published literature that describes culturally responsive program theory development is available. Necessarily, the authors are using this opportunity to develop, implement, and reflect on an urban Indigenous theory-development process.
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 | 0.084 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".