Instrument for measuring the result (IMR): a standardized model for contract supervision and remuneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This master’s dissertation aimed to identify the obstacles to this end, a qualitative, applied and descriptive research was carried out with the managers and technical inspectors of contracts of the Federal Institutions of Higher Education (in portuguese the initials is IFES). The data were collected through interviews with contract managers and questionnaires with contract technicians in the first quarter of 2021. The sample consisted of 10 managers, 02 per region of the country and 94 technical tax officers. The answers of the interviews were analyzed with the help of the Iramuteq statistical software and the questionnaire data were tabulated in spreadsheets of the Microsoft Excel software. In this way, the main obstacles and difficulties encountered in the contract management and monitoring process have been identified and a measurement instrument (product) model has been proposed in order for it to become an effective tool in contract monitoring and that, through it, to provide greater efficiency in the monitoring and remuneration of service contracts in the public sphere.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".