MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983891157 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v3n1p121

On Patterns of Refusals Conversion and Propensity of Converted Refusals to Respond at Later Waves in a Longitudinal Survey

2011· article· en· W1983891157 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olaniyi Mathew Olayiwola, Godwin N. Amahia, A.A. Adewara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProxy (statistics)Stratified samplingDemographyPsychologySample (material)Logistic regressionPropensity score matchingStatisticsMathematicsSocial psychologySociologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a selected sample member refuses to take part in a survey interview, the survey organization may not accept therefusal as a final outcome, but rather to make further attempts to convert the refusals into an interview. The aim of thisstudy was to investigate the pattern of refusals conversion and the propensity of the converted refusals to respond at laterwaves in a longitudinal survey. A two-stage stratified randon sampling scheme was used with households in Oyo as thesampling unit. A sample of 750 households were randomly selected from the community and sub-divided into five equalgroups with each group treated as a wave. The recording schedule was used to obtain information on demographic characteristicsincluding survey process, external environment, age, gender, educational qualification, religion, employmentstatus, family size, duration of interview and the type of questions. The data were collected through oral interview of thesubjects. Summary statistics were constructed to look at the patterns of conversion of refusals. Logistic model was fittedto investigate the propensity of converted refusals to respond at later waves following a conversion. At wave 1 of thesurvey, 109 house heads were interview in households with a response rates (in percentage) of 72.67.The interview periodwas an average of 8 minutes per house head. The response rate at wave 2, wave 3, wave 4 and wave 5 were 82, 81.33, 82and 80.67 respectively. Outcomes of a conversion attempt were a full interview and a proxy interview. Five house headswent through the conversion process at wave 1 and data were successfully collected on 2 of them (40%). All of them wereinterviewed again at wave 2 (100%). Those converted refusals at wave 1, 100% gave a full interview six months later. Forhouse heads who were converted between wave 1 and wave 5 continued to give full interviews at every wave up to wave5. For all other waves, the converted refusals participated throughout the survey. Logistic model showed that, those whowere converted to a full interview rather than proxy interview were the most likely to give a full interview at subsequentwave. When we included in the model, information on the wave in which the initial conversion was took place and thetime since conversion, we found that those whose initial conversions were in earlier and later waves were less likely togive a full interview compared with those were converted at wave 3. Adding demographic information suggested thatmale, people with their ages between ((30 − 50) years, respondents with primary education were likely to take part againfollowing a conversion.

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 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)0.114
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1140.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.691
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.162 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematics ResearchSame topicSurvey Methodology and NonresponseFrench-language works237,207