MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1011634492

The perils of interpreting age differences in attitude reports: question order effects decrease with age

2007· article· en· W1011634492 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Official Statistics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompromisePsychologyDimension (graph theory)Age groupsOrder (exchange)Survey data collectionSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyDemographyStatisticsMathematicsSociologySocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Secondary analyses of survey data and two laboratory experiments demonstrate that question order effects decrease with respondents’ increasing age. Presumably, the content of preceding questions is less likely to remain accessible for older respondents, thus attenuating or eliminating their impact on answers to subsequent questions. Supporting this assumption, question order effects were obtained for older respondents with high working memory, but not for older respondents with low working memory. This age-sensitivity of question order effects can compromise comparisons across age groups, even to the extent of reversing the ordinal placement of cohorts along the attitude dimension. Theoretical and methodological implications are discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.331 · 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