Population Surveys of Children’s Health and Wellbeing: Parental Views on Data Collection Content and Methods
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pre‐testing is a standard tool to increase appropriateness and to capture the audience, yet rarely is this technique employed for population surveys. This study aimed to examine parental views on the content and methodology of a population child health survey. Forty‐eight Australian families of children aged 0–12 years were interviewed about the content and proposed data collection methods of the draft Victorian Population Survey of Child Health and Wellbeing. Concerns with instructions and items of several commonly used child health measures were identified. Parents preferred face‐to‐face methods rather than telephone interviews due to survey legitimacy; however, 72% of parents indicated that they would participate in a telephone survey. This study provided new findings about respondent views on child health measures and the conditions under which CATI versus face‐to‐face methods for child health data collection methods would be acceptable.
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 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 | 0.060 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it