Evaluation - Science topic

This two variables show significant correlation to the criterion variable in that the employees will be more committed and motivated consequent upon which production increase.

I'm not sure, as we will need to analyse the data and write the paper over the next year.

Some of these impacts include algae blooms causing the depletion of oxygen in surface waters, pathogens and nitrates in drinking water, and the emission of odors and gases into the air. Long term uses to restore the soil's fertility; bio fertilizers are necessary. The use of chemical fertilizers over a lengthy period damages the soil and reduces crop output. On the other side, bio fertilizers improve the soil's ability to hold water while also adding vital minerals like nitrogen, vitamins, and proteins.Soil Temperature, pH, Bio fertilizer source and species, and soil aeration. Factors affecting the efficiency of bio fertilizers are many, the most important of which are the C / N ratio, ventilation, soil moisture content, and degree of reaction PH of the soil.

Measurement and evaluation as subject teaching at M.Phil level . If any guidance or help require It will be my pleasure.

So basically you're discussing the use of observational data to answer causal questions (which are often best answered using randomized trials). In that case, the most important thing will be bias (selection bias, measurement error, and confounding bias). I will specifically look for the detail of study design and statistical analyses on this part, i.e., how the authors came up with measures to mitigate bias when they recruit and follow up participants, or if this is a retrospective study, how they can confirm the validity of the measurements.

Confounding is often seen as the most important problem in answering causal questions, so of course I'll look for the methods used to control for confounding. As you said in your comment, it may be multiple regression where the potential confounders are selected based on a DAG (or DAGs), some causal inference method such as propensity score or instrumental variable, or the confounders are controlled by design (restriction, matching, etc). However, I believe the use of one method is not sufficient; I'll read the description, too, to make sure that their actual implementation is valid. Unfortunately, you'll see that not all papers described their DAG in detail (e.g., how they came up with the variables and the relationships between variables); some didn't even publish their DAG. Or for propensity score methods, they didn't show the diagnostic results (SMDs, Love plot, histogram of weights).

It's hard to summarize everything I'll look for in a few keywords, but yeah, probably "did they handle bias properly?".

Ohh, sorry! I got it! :-)

F

The following is a proposal template for evaluating the phytochemical characteristics of plants used in the treatment of malaria. Please tailor it to fit the specific requirements and guidelines provided by your institution or funding agency.

Title: Evaluating the Phytochemical Characteristics of Plants Used in the Treatment of Malaria

b. Phytochemical Extraction: The selected plant samples will undergo a sequential extraction process using various solvents of increasing polarity (e.g., hexane, ethyl acetate, methanol). These extracts will be concentrated to obtain crude extracts for further analysis.

c. Phytochemical Analysis: The crude extracts will be subjected to phytochemical screening to identify the presence of various secondary metabolites, including alkaloids, flavonoids, terpenoids, phenolics, and saponins. Modern analytical techniques such as High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) will be utilized to identify and quantify the individual bioactive compounds.

d. In vitro Anti-malarial Activity: The extracts will be evaluated for their anti-malarial potential against Plasmodium falciparum strains using established in vitro assays. The efficacy of the extracts will be compared to standard anti-malarial drugs.

e. Toxicity Assessment: The safety profile of promising extracts will be assessed through cytotoxicity studies using human cell lines. Additionally, acute toxicity studies on small animal models will be conducted to gauge potential adverse effects.

Remember, the format and specific content of the proposal may vary based on the requirements of the funding agency or institution you are submitting it to.

You are interested in finding an approach to evaluate the academic profiles of researchers, including quantitative indicators, collaborations, and funding. One possible approach is to use bibliometric analysis, which is a quantitative approach to analyze the characteristics of publications, authors, and citations within a particular field. Bibliometric analysis can help you identify the most productive researchers, the most impactful publications, and the patterns of collaborations and funding within your field of interest.

There are several tools and databases that you can use for bibliometric analysis, such as Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. These tools can provide a range of metrics and indicators, such as citation counts, h-index, and collaboration networks, that can help evaluate the academic profiles of researchers.

It's also important to note that bibliometric analysis has some limitations, such as potential biases in the selection of databases and metrics. Therefore, it's important to carefully consider the research question and the data available before conducting bibliometric analysis.

Are you using a particular model such as the Kirkpatrick four-level model for program evaluation? I would like to engage your question, but need a reference point for specific discussion on evaluation and program success.

Your question has been asked a million times. Here are three brief thoughts.

1. Colloquially (and often pragmatically), research and evaluation mean the same thing. In a technical sense, there is a difference. All evaluations are research, but not all research is evaluation.

2. Evaluation means to judge or to assign a value. Most likely one ranks practices and programs. In contrast, research without evaluation can be non-judgmental and descriptive, causal, etc. One's research aims dictate the purpose; one would no more evaluate one's religious belief as correct/incorrect than one hired to evaluate an educational intervention would purely describe it without a judgment of worth.

3. One's purpose influences one's paradigm, but don't get hung up on the indefensible idea one is connected with a solo paradigm throughout a study. I like the marriage of pragmatism plus critical realism (think Joseph Maxwell). We act with what tools we have, though we should be optimal versus satisficing. Critical realism fits qualitative research and cuts across most paradigms; we investigate a sample because each has a story to tell, informed by a perspective. Still, everything isn't reduced to unknowable and completely individuated.

Thank you. I appreciate your insight.

Research and evaluation serve slightly different purposes. Research is the process of investigating a topic in order to gain new insights or discover new knowledge. This may involve collecting and analyzing data through various methods, such as qualitative interviews or quantitative surveys. The focus of research is often on generating new ideas or theories.

In contrast, evaluation is the process of determining the value or quality of a program, policy, or intervention. Evaluation may involve assessing the effectiveness of a program in achieving its objectives, identifying areas for improvement, or determining whether the program is worth continuing or funding. The focus of evaluation is often on making decisions about the future of a program or policy.

While there is some overlap between research and evaluation, evaluation tends to be more focused on decision-making and program improvement, whereas research is more focused on generating new knowledge or theories. However, both research and evaluation are important for improving our understanding of the world and for making informed decisions about policies and programs.

I would argue you can always compare to some state-of-the-art techniques. Then you can build up the comparison as "To evaluate our technique, we compare it to <state-of-the-art technique>. Although <state-of-the-art technique> works inherently different than our technique, comparing results enables us to evaluate how we measure up to state-of-the-art."

In the discussion part you can then discuss the results of your technique and how it relates to state-of-the-art. Is your performance better? Do you make a better trade-off between criteria? Are you approximately as good as state-of-the-art but easier to apply? etc.

As long as you explain why you set up a certain comparison and why you select specific state-of-the-art techniques, the evaluation has value.

Find the doc attached

I have an avatar based virtual world where you can code, terraform and build.

An equivalent platform to Second Life.

Having server access means total control.

Welcome to have look if you want too. It is a good platform for bringing people in as avatars and education

Dear sir,

Download the Aidos-x system for free from the site http://lc.kubagro.ru/aidos/_Aidos-X.htm . It is an excellent intelligent system for diagnosing and classifying human diseases.

Methods for using the system Aidos-x for diagnosing human diseases are disclosed in lectures with sound "Using automated system-cognitive analysis for the classification of human organ tumors", "Intelligent system for diagnosing early stages of chronic kidney disease", which can be downloaded right now from the website https://www.patreon.com/user?u=87599532 After subscribing to this site, you will receive databases for medical research to identify those diseases that you will read about in lectures. The acquired skills in working in the system Aidos-x will allow you to apply for grants to perform scientific research in medicine.

Sincerely, Vladimir Ryabtsev, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor of Information Technology

Jean-Baptiste Coffin thanks for the answer but I can't access the website ...

I've read a lot of papers mentionning this software, it seems very complete and I can't find the equivalent ...

Hello Chol I Kang

I agree with the interpretation by Marina Bazhutina about what this means - that the editor is considering the reviews which have been sent back. At this stage, you can only wait. Considering it is 20 days, this is a lot less than what some other people have said on RG!!

I'm glad to see comments questioning the distinction between empirical and subjective data. In my view, all data are empirical. And quantitative data are not as "objective" as we are often lead to believe. In fact, quantitative data are also prone to interpretation based theoretical frameworks, designs and methods which often reflect researchers' subjective views about the nature of "reality," and how we access it.

I think the following paper will help you out:

Stress and depression in undergraduate students during the COVID-19 pandemic: Nursing students compared to undergraduate students in non-nursing majors

LMB Thomas - Journal of Professional Nursing, 2022 - Elsevier

Can you look for themes? Sure. Thematic analysis can be used. Obviously your data can be "thin," but a well structured sample can improve validity and reliability. Often we think there's only Braun and Clarke, but Muir and Fereday provide a competing perspective. Boyatzis also used thematic analysis with documents. Here my recommendation: Be pragmatic. Thematic analysis is adaptable to most any situation. (Note Muir/Friday used thematic analysis with documents as well as Boyatzis.)

Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International journal of qualitative methods, 5(1), 80-92.

Sorry, I was hoping to help you

I would treat evaluation as a specific kind of research, better known as "Evaluation Research." In particular, I think Evaluation Research is distinguished by its goals and its research questions, rather than anything about its methods.

Hello Ahlam Talibi

I agree with the comment by Avishag Gordon that it should not take long and the suggestion by Faraed Salman that it may be "a few weeks" already seems long to me. My experience is that it is faster, perhaps 1-2 weeks and I have noticed that some journals (and those editors) are quite fast and some are less fast.

Dear Patruni Muralidhara Rao . The best research is the one which helps the community more than other researches in all directions.

Visit also the following useful RG link:

I think that the best of these tests is the IELTS test because of the test's ability to distinguish between the language proficiency of the testers

To study this topic, I think that the comparative research method is useful in these topics

thanks for the great information. where does it take place?

Any type of error metrics such as MSE, IAE, ISE, ITAE, MAE etc

Clare Mendioro it is important to identify the state of the program (e.g., early stages, well-established, etc.) so that you can propose the proper evaluation form (e.g., implementation study, outcomes-based, impact, etc.). Once those have been established, then you can frame your evaluation questions based on what others who have completed that evaluation form have asked. From the evaluation questions will emerge the necessary target audience and data you will need.

I see no practical difference. However, evaluation typically identifies a single causal path from treatment to effect. Tools like random assignment, instrumental variables, regression discontinuity, and difference-in-differences are especially useful. “Research” may do the same, but often it takes a broader perspective where causal paths are entangled. Good research is often exploratory, but good evaluation always attempts to establish causality.

Dear Ms. Hunt!

You raised a very important issue to consider. May I argue that research is a "collective platform" for working with science while evaluation (measuring) is a toolset to advance science and education. I searched for resources to support my claim:

1) Valle, N., Brishke, J., Shenkman, E. et al. Design, Development and Evaluation of the Citizen Science Cancer Curriculum (CSCC): a Design and Development Case Study. TechTrends (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00737-6, Open access:

2) Blankenberger, B., Gehlhausen Anderson, S. & Lichtenberger, E. Improving Institutional Evaluation Methods: Comparing Three Evaluations Using PSM, Exact and Coarsened Exact Matching. Res High Educ 62, 1248–1275 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-021-09632-0, Open access:

3) Álex Escolà-Gascón, Josep Gallifa, How to measure soft skills in the educational context: psychometric properties of the SKILLS-in-ONE questionnaire, Studies in Educational Evaluation, Volume 74, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101155. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191491X22000323

4) Daraio, C., Vaccari, A. How should evaluation be? Is a good evaluation of research also just? Towards the implementation of good evaluation. Scientometrics (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04329-2, Open access:

Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely

The research is based on evaluating the reality and then making proposals for its development, as well as the evaluation, based on the results of evaluating the actual performance, and then suggesting procedures for development. Both are used as tools in evaluation.

There is an essential difference between scientific research and evaluation: it is that scientific research is carried out according to the steps of scientific research: it begins with defining the problem, and ends with providing better solutions to it, according to a scientific methodology.

Dear Mendiore

CDC guideline have 9 component of evaluation. Some.of these are quantitative like Sensitivity, PPV and data Quality. So these are easily calculated. However some of the indicator are qualitative. Which are to be ascertained through interview of related stake holders.

We have used CDC guideline these are easy and friendly to use. I will share you my evaluation report which have all these CDC guideline indicators of evaluation of public health programs.

Please mail me on drsandeepguriro@gmail.com

Thanks

I do not recommend the approach used in the linked study. Truth be told, I cannot figure out why the authors used the statistical procedures they did, and I'm not convinced the results support the claims they're trying to make.

I suggest keeping things simple. Do two separate analyses - one with the reaction time data - and one for participant accuracy. In SPSS, you could conduct a multiple regression for the RT data. You could then conduct a binomial logistic regression for the accuracy data, coding responses as 0 = error, 1 = correct.

I presume the task difficulty manipulation is intended to create variability in participant accuracy. If participants are using a speed-accuracy trade-off strategy, you should observe the following pattern across the two tests: as accuracy decreases, response time also decreases and vice versa.

Hi,

It depends on which operating system you use on your desktop. Some suggestions I have for you are:

1 - Graph

2 - Graphmatics

3 - R Studio

This software are for building line graphs, hope I helped.

Austria is conducting such an evalutation through the AUVA. You can contact, and use my name :

DI Georg Effenberger

Austrian Workers’ Compensation Board

Head of Prevention Department

Vienna, Austria

Hello Manoja Weerasekara , even though think-aloud protocol is considered by some authors as a widely used method for usability testing of software, interfaces, websites, and (instructional) documents. It is possible to perceive the satisfaction of users by his/her expression, frustrations, frictions and comments. An interview or Likert scale could be added after the Think-aloud procedure, focused on user's satisfaction with the experience.

The basic principle of this method (Think-aloud protocol) is that potential users are asked to complete a set of tasks with the artefact tested, and to constantly verbalize their thoughts while working on the tasks.

From all possibilities of prototype testing, the Think-aloud Protocol is the most

suitable choice to help observe usability and interaction problems from users’ point of view. According to Villanueva [4], the technique consists of a researcher observing 1–4 users doing specific tasks within a controlled environment. The user’s actions and thoughts are to be described verbally aloud by him/herself on real time. The researcher records the user actions by written notifications, video or voice recorder.

The participants are to perform a simulation of tasks using the prototype. The Think-aloud Protocol has to be executed individually and the steps of the task to be closely observed with participants verbalizing actions, thoughts and confusion: do users understand what is the app? Do users cognitively understand icons and actions to take? What is the visual perception of users regarding colors, types, size, icons and visual impact? Is the process an easy and smooth experience? How do users explore the options?

Nevertheless, I've been feeling that for remote research, cooperative evaluation can be more useful e easier to execute.

If you search on the European court website, what are you looking for?

the Health Research Board in Ireland has adopted the following approach to its evaluation of grant applications

...Until recently, public reviews have been used solely to provide direct feedback to applicant teams so they could take that feedback on board, and thereby gain experience of incorporating Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) into their research proposals.

From now on, integrating the public reviews into panel decision making will be the norm for calls which undergo public review, and this step is in line with our published plans to strengthen PPI input into HRB decision-making processes.

In addition to feedback on the scientific aspects from the international peer-reviewers, the HRB receives written feedback on the quality of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) from two public reviewers for each application ahead of the panel meeting.

All of the reviewers’ comments (both public and scientific) are passed on to the applicants, who have the opportunity to respond. The reviews and the related applicant responses are made available to the panel before they meet....

https://www.hrb.ie/funding/funding-schemes/public-patient-and-carer-involvement-in-research/

Dear Wuraola,

Kindly read and digest the following articles.

Wish you all the best with your study

Hello. There are a number of available scales to measure problematic gaming. I recently published a scoping review which includes a Table (Table 3) that has an overview of different scales that have been used to measure gaming disorder. These include the Game Addiction Scale, the Pathological Gaming Scale and the Internet Gaming Disorder Scale.

You can access it here:

For attachment style, the measures will depend on the age of the people you are looking at. If this is among adults, there are a few self-report scales available including the Relationship Structures (ECR-RS) Questionnaire.

There have been a number of research articles published on the topic you want to look at. I would encourage you to go on PubMed or Google Scholar and type in "gaming disorder" and "attachment style" as keywords to get access to this literature. You can look at the measures used in these studies and decide whether you want to use the same measures or different ones.

Good luck!

Tomchilatib sug'orish orqali suv tuproqning qaysi qatlamigacha yetib boradi?

Also check https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-17387-5_15

Dear Kübra Avci , you seem to be right that this paper and the entire ECCLS vanished into thin air...

I however found this listing of papers where the ECCLS was co-author/editor here on RG:

On the top-right you are being pointed to a Mr. Horobin who appearently was involved with the ECCLS at some time and has quite an active profile here on RG - maybe it could proof fruitful for you to contact him and ask who was in charge of archiving the ECCLS documents.

Good luck!

Dear Dalia, Kindly follow the references, although I think you need more papers for comparing the contamination and pollutions, by the way , you can ask me to send other articles for your discussion part!

Anyway, hope they would be helpful:

1- Distribution and Accumulation of Heavy Metals in Surface Sediment of Lake Junín National Reserve, Peru; Available online:

and it is in research gate !

2- The heavy metal contamination of Lake Junín National Reserve, Peru: An unintended consequence of the juxtaposition of hydroelectricity and mining

Available on : https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/24/8/article/i1052-5173-24-8-4.htm

3- The History of Mining in Cerro de Pasco and Heavy Metal Deposition in Lake Junin Peru ( it related in 2012 and I attached it)

4- Protected Area Profile Perú Junín National Reserve ( It has been attached)!

Dear Chanaa Abdessamad

I suggest you to go through these articles first:

1. https://towardsdatascience.com/recommendation-systems-models-and-evaluation-84944a84fb8e

2. https://towardsdatascience.com/techniques-for-content-based-recommender-systems-64f812d2b5a0

3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110866515000341

4. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6167855/how-to-evaluate-a-content-based-recommender-system

5. https://medium.com/sciforce/inside-recommendations-how-a-recommender-system-recommends-9afc0458bd8f

6. https://medium.com/@jwu2/content-based-recommender-systems-an-overview-84a65eaeebb9

Kind Regards

Dear Sara Mohamed

These links might be an useful asset, have a look:

1. https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/biosensors/biosensors-11-00203/article_deploy/biosensors-11-00203-v2.pdf

2.

3. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78784-3

Kind Regards

NO. The best way to use a single specific threshold for your data analysis. Various thresholds may means that you are using only the bias to accuracy or preferred ones.

Shekhar Koirala I have searched the link you have shared, but I did not find any ground truth file of the evaluation dataset

This article will be helpful.............

Emerging Challenges and Roles for Quantity Surveyors in the Construction Industry

The conditions for accepting a Post Doc. fellow varies across universities.

RMSLE metric only considers the relative error between and the Predicted and the actual value and the scale of the error is not significant. On the other hand, RMSE value Increases in magnitude if the scale of error increases. https://medium.com/analytics-vidhya/root-mean-square-log-error-rmse-vs-rmlse-935c6cc1802a

Ana Maria Arias Castaño Gracias por tu respuesta y tu interés en la pregunta. Ciertamente considero la pregunta que mencionaste sobre el contexto del PP. Hay contextos que son transversales a cualquier política, como considerar el territorio y el componente geográfico de los datos. Esta es una forma de facilitar el acceso a los datos y hacer transparente la formulación, implementación y evaluación del PP. Es un debate interesante. Muchas gracias por su respuesta.

The 1-PL (Rasch) and 2-PL (Birnbaum) models of Item Response Theory (IRT) both imply that the items are unidimensional (i.e., that they measure a single underlying latent variable). Model misfit would indicate that there is a violation of the unidimensionality implication for either one of these models.

I am also interested to the answers of this topic.

Good question,but both are so low for me that it does not matter.

In this paper is presented how to establish a working system for the achievement of scientific results that characterize a university.

The structuring of the research pyramids around the projects of the research groups stands out, integrating science with the graduate and undergraduate processes, with the participation of the students.

ohhhh no idea man sorry

yes, the questions in each level can be related.

Dear Paul Bisong ,

welocme!

You have to return to the manual of the Sentaurus software to see the cause of the hanging of the execution of the program.

This may be the systematic path to the solution.

May be a method to get rapidly acquainted to program is the study some of its tutorials especially those related to your device.

You will learn in a practical way how do you prepare an input simulation file for your device and how to run the simulation and how do you postprocess the results.

For the manual please look at the link: Sentaurus™ Device User Guide - ResearchGate

Best wishes

may this article will help you

You can consider using the Fréchet inception distance (FID) which is a metric that could assess the quality of synthesized images created by GAN.

Thanks to all

You can find the answer is here:

[CFD] Green-Gauss Cell-Based and Node-Based Gradient Schemes - YouTube

If you are reading the prior work just for your literature review, you don't have to meticulously read them as if you are reviewing them as a referee. However, if you identify some errors or shortcomings, take a note of them, perhaps you might end up with another paper idea from them. You just have to identify what is different compared to your paper and how your paper is an improvement or a different but important paper looking from another aspect, etc. If it is highly related to your paper, and you need to be very specific to convince the readers that your contribution is significant, then you should read it very carefully. If you need to get a general idea about the area, for a potential research, then you will need to read the most important (highly cited) and early work on that subject very carefully. You also need to read the most recent work, to be up-to-date on the subject. Your reading of the earliest, the most influential and the latest papers on the subject will lead to more papers to read, to guide your literature review and to improve your understanding of the state of the art in the area.

Dear Alex,

My point was that such a question could not really be answered precisely. Ultimately, it is up to a negotiation between the consultant and the contractor. I have done very little consulting in the health or business world, so I don't really have an answer for you. However, I suggest this for people starting out. That is to ask the contractor is they have a standard range they pay. After one gains some experience, they learn a reasonable range to ask.

Good luck,

Jim McLean