Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book provides a contemporary and thought-provoking exploration of the concept of practical wisdom—what it is and how it can be incorporated into evaluation practice. It defines what practical wisdom is, explores its roots, where it stands today, what constitutes the "wise" evaluator, and how we can develop sound judgment in an unpredictable and chaotic time. It brings together evaluation thought leaders and practitioners to examine the concept of practical wisdom. The authors’ enlightening essays are interwoven with reflective strands comprised of commentaries, examples, and new ideas added by Hurteau and her colleagues that offer a recursive and intricate pattern of reflection on the topic of practical wisdom.This is a rare book because it moves beyond evaluation methodology to explore how practical wisdom can help us develop new and better solutions for difficult evaluation situations. It will become a standard reference for practitioners, trainers. and teachers of evaluation because it considers the history, ethics, and competencies that underpin practical wisdom, and examines the ways that this untaught skill can be applied, to do, as House says, “the right thing in the special circumstances of performing the job.”
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".