MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7056141254

Embedding the Emerging Evaluator, Evaluation as Learning in Community Arts

2024· other· en· W7056141254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentConsistency (knowledge bases)CurriculumSummative assessmentStatus quoProgram evaluationProcess (computing)Thematic analysisRubric
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sistema Kingston (SK) is an El-Sistema inspired intensive aQer-school music program that focuses on positive social change through the pursuit of free, group-centred music instruction. I have been invested with the program personally and professionally since its inception in 2015. Following suit of similar programs across Canada and the world, SK initiated an evaluation process to address concerns surrounding the program's future consistency and sustainability. Though some may not consider consistency to be preferable if the status quo is not always effectively serving students, families, and communities, I interpret this concern raised by the program director to refer predominantly to a current lack of transferable continuity and flow between the teaching methods and curriculum content actioned by transient teaching team members. Combining my scholarly interest in evaluation and assessment, with a desire to support SK, this project saw me as an embedded external formative evaluator who developed tools and instruments to build capacity within SK and collect data to answer questions prioritized by SK. The process evaluation conducted using developmental evaluation techniques unearthed rich qualitative data, that when analyzed by thematic coding revealed four overarching areas of program consideration around which recommendations could be generated, including Representation and Voice, Staff Recruitment, Curriculum, Assessment and Group Structure, and an effusive SK Genie. The evaluation questions were addressed by elaborating on the recommendations, and an evaluation report offered to the directorship of Sistema Kingston, in the hope that the knowledge will be mobilized to secure the future of the program. By reflecting on the experience of designing and undertaking an evaluation process, extracting, and analyzing data, and reporting findings to a community partner, I have learnt and grown as a researcher and academic, as well as progressing my emergence as an evaluator.

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)0.308
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.247
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3080.247
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.045
Scholarly communication0.0300.017
Open science0.0030.020
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→