MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6990448042

The development of a Temporal Logic Model

2001· dissertation· en· W6990448042 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2001
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsTemporal logicLogic modelInterimProcess (computing)Temporal logic of actionsPerspective (graphical)Development (topology)Dynamic logic (digital electronics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research explores the use of the program logic model in the international development field, in particular, how logic models can be adapted from a closed system approach containing a rational comprehensive perspective to an open system approach containing the social learning perspective. The research redefined time in the program logic model from a space or duration in which the preset program activities take place, to time as an evolutionary process in which the implementation of the program sparks learning and adaptation. The latter concept of time was embedded into an alternative logic model, entitled Temporal Logic Model (TLM). It provides a space for stakeholders to record changes in the program context, interim assessments, and program modifications in a format that requires periodic updates. The research methods include a literature review, case study and expert review. While conclusions could not be drawn, the preliminary findings on the TLM technical attributes were positive. Further the thesis discusses the aforementioned paradigm shift, the theoretical roots of logic models, and role of the reflective practitioner.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.016
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)→Same topicEvaluation and Performance Assessment→French-language works237,207→